Dedicated to
Suesie Q
Without whom life would have circled.

In "The Brain Is A Wonderful ThingIn "The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing" the mechanisms of brain function were detailed.

In this book, we apply those mechanisms in evaluating selected recent studies as well as engaging the brain itself to evaluate some rather interesting misinterpretations in brain research.

If the reader has not yet digested "The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing" , it is recommended as reading prior to approaching this book. The mechanisms of brain function were detailed.

Living in a realistic world, where truth is truth and perception has an interesting way of disagreeing with that, it is fully understood that old ignorance dies hard.

The chapter on the politics of brain function details materialism and sexual preference in depth.

Neuroscience has been caught up in the same "Monkey see - Monkey Do" protocol ever since Aristotle. The only things that have changed are the toys used to see with and the names they are given.

The title of this book pretty much says it all: Perception is indeed Cognitive Deception shrouded in Modern Mysticism.

Disclaimer: Although this electronic book is fully responsive and will display in mobile devices it is best suited when read in a book size format not a smart phone. Smart phones will not fully display all images used but you are welcome to use them.

Comments: Direct comments to


There is a general assumption that the relation of opposites is equality.

As a kind man recently mused, "hmm, how are we to get somewhere, then.."?

The opposite can only be in relative relationship. Not total opposites as they do attract, but they can never combine to make a new thing.

Only a vibrating, non-zero and majority condition can survive together.

It is why we observe waves at all, Werner.

There is no distinct, like you stink where did that come from?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Its' what long-term memory winds up doing when left to its own devices.

Read it again, I dare you.

The basic function of long-term was left to its own mixture for output.

The memory of the past is reaching the ability to join the 'now' and the depth of the standard way of reading is just about there, as well.

The moment of the 'where did that come from' connection, no matter how small it may have been, was the moment of realization of something not quite right.

It looks like a center in the brain, when it is just the first stage of memory for a specific sense... the highest amplitudes, the brightest image from the result needs the most nutrients.

Slow down that perception and see the rate of processing, equal to the rate, the incoming signal of your brain would see: your perspective.

Everything would be in everyplace, but fuzzy wherever the value of the first level of memory function was weaker and the rate of processing differences in sense pathways would make the rest the same shade.

Sample one pathway collection from the same input receptor, a single eye, or a better yet, a single taste bud.

The result will be an image showing that specific area with all of the rest of the brain would appear to not have a thing like it. From time to time a person's brain wiring is found to be different and the test would then have a disclaimer.

So much, for fMRI brain scan's reliability!

When you look at something and deduce its cause, you are deducing a perspective that is upside down to the reality of the thing you are observing.

Look at a red car. Notice to you, its color is red. But color is a perception of your brain, based in the wavelengths and amplitudes of the visible spectrum provided to the input receptors of your brain's visual pathways.

Your eyes are not seeing. You are seeing, through your eyes.

But what are you seeing?

Light that is not absorbed by the item you are looking at is reflected. Your eyes are seeing the reflected light, sending it to your brain, where you perceive it to be real.

But if the item is rejecting a wavelength and thereby reflecting it, then the item is not the color of the reflected wavelength, but rather the color of the absorbed, wavelength.

That red car is red to you, because it reflected every color it, is not.

Things change when you observe a light source.

No light is reflecting from a light source. The light being observed from a light source is the result of a friction process.

The light observed from an object that is reflecting light, is a rejection process.

It is called 'complimentary' color.

Since the observation perspective, is that of your brain's perspective, it is possible to use complimentary colors exactly as they are used in painting, to determine the real color of an object.

After all, is not the real color of something, what that something projects as its color, and not what something rejects as not being its color?

Your eyes see rejected colors, unless you are observing a light source.

So what is the real color of that red car?

Take the three primary colors: red, yellow and blue.

What ever color you are seeing, remove it from the list. Combine the remaining two colors.

is the real color of the item you are observing, as you are observing its rejected color. (Read for the details and source.)

The combination of yellow and blue is green.

The red car is actually green. It just makes you think it is red, as red is the color is says it is not.

Imagine if you were to do that with your skin color? Skin color is no different than any other reflected color.

The method to really understand anything made by you is to take the first thing of it and use that start as the direction of everything to come after it.

To know what to do next, just look at what you just did.

It does not work the same way if someone else is reading something you wrote.

That someone else, will have to take the first thing, or the first part and, turn it upside down, or they will read whatever you said, from their perspective and what you intended to say, will not be understood at all.

It's a nice safety hint, the next time you write a business letter, or a legal document, or anything that someone else is going to have to make a judgment of.

If you want to make your point, without requiring the other person to turn it upside down, to understand it at all (unsuspecting reader), then write the first thing, or say the first thing that is in the other person's perspective.

Keep every bit of the rest of the letter, or brief or anything else you say or do, in the same perspective.

A great deal of confusion would simply stop if the speaker would speak to the crowd, in their language and perspective, instead of the crowd having to listen to the speaker, only to perceive the speaker had ulterior motives.

When you have to read written words, or comprehend spoken words from the third perspective, as in telling the story of someone or something else, other than the original thing or person: then taking the first or opening words, phrase or concept and turning it upside down, works the same way as if the writer had done it for you. But a lot harder.

Treating the interpretation of someone else's intentions, words or actions is the same as the color choices.

Take away red, as it is what you see, and you are left with the average of yellow and blue.

Take away blue, as it would be the color of what you are observing, and you are left with the average of yellow and red.

A story, letter, legal brief, handwritten note, or anything at all, all have the common thread of being made of three parts.

Each of those single parts, do not become the act or purpose of the letter without the letter being measured in some form.

It stands as only interim knowledge until either the writer is present, as in when it is being written, or the reader is present at the time of reading.

The letter exists no matter how you measure it, as the contents of the letter, the letter's amplitude is what matters, not the vehicle it uses to be usable. When amplitude is measured a new thing is made, a product of the two amplitudes making up the interaction.

If the contrary were true, then email could not exist. It is partially true, as email is having a hard time being accepted by typewriter users, due to the resistance of understanding that the manner of delivery is not the point, the contents are the point.

Take away cause, as it is what starts the process, and you are left with the average of the knowledge of a lack of cause, and the knowledge of a cause, and the result, is an understanding.

That understanding is the moment the awareness of that event, thing or subject, becomes known. It is a system of degrees, after that.

It has been referred to in cartoons as a light bulb going off.

Actually, it starts with knowing. It becomes amazement. It finally stops, in admiration.

It can also start in knowing, become shock or revulsion, and stop in hate.

It is not at all consciousness. It is awareness. Awareness of self is what really matters in humans.

With two processes going on, long-term memory and processing, and short-term processing, a sense of self can set up in either one.

It depends which one is dominant.

If short-term is dominant and is responsible for creating the loop of awareness in itself, as well as long-term memory of such an awareness, then long-term serves short-term and the person is in control of the use of their abilities.

If long-term is dominant and is responsible for creating a loop of awareness in itself, then short-term is nothing but a way station for better muscle control and faster speed and better bar fights.

Short-term is wired to create a loop in humans, while long-term is not.

A short-term loop will override any long-term reaction if it is strong enough and dominant enough.

A long-term loop will control short-term processing and make the human wonder why they do the things they do; if they have a slight degree of short-term self-awareness, or totally ignore the condition of being controlled by environment, or being controlled by a misconception; of who the person really is.

Being stuck on oneself is a good example of the latter.

The cycle of poverty and hate and abuse, are examples of the former.

Long-term loops are fine when used to support short-term awareness but a disaster waiting to happen when short-term is ignored.

The more short-term is in control, the less potential there is for any false sense of self to exercise control.

Sure, we all have the moment of jealousy, or the fit of depression, no matter how slight.

But jealousy only comes from a perceived sense of self that is based in having or being or doing, what the object of jealousy, already has acquired or become.

And fits of depression, short or long, come from a perceived sense of self, that is based in not having, or not being, or not doing, what the trigger of the depression, has failed to reach.

Turn it upside down, and you will see the perceived notions of jealousy and depression are both involved in hope.

Hope can be positive or negative.

Positive hope, sets up the long-term based false sense of self, for a fall, as a goal was established not based in the 'now' of the short-term: rather based, in the past as that is all long-term is. If short-term had been in control, hope would have comforted.

Anti-Positive hope, sets up the long-term based false sense of self, for a fall, as a goal established that is based in the 'now' of the short-term, is not part of the 'now' of the short-term as the short-term is not in control at all. If short-term had been in control, anti-hope would not have been.

Starting to become aware of something requires starting at the beginning of that something.

No matter what that first thing is, by turning it upside down one will see how that first thing will be interpreted, or understood.


The root cause of anything is its first step.

From the perspective of that first step, emerges every point, every message contained in everything, after it.

When looking upon that first step the perspective is from the results of it, not from the realization that it is the first step, made of two steps.

So what is awareness?

A loop formed in amplitude, that is built to be controlled by the faster and more refined short-term process but can be falsely created by the long-term process if short-term is not in control.

To know is to be aware of knowledge. The awareness of the knowledge will occur when the non-zero of knowledge, that missing part, is finally understood.

In other words: Awareness is: knowing that you know.

When that condition applies, to more than the majority of a person's specific sense, self-awareness takes its form:

Every point, subject and concept is capable of being understood to the point of awareness. It is what gives the detective his 'gut' feeling.

Self-awareness can be resident and irrelevant; making the person live the lie of the past's confused and upside down perspective of reality, or dominant and controlling; where the 'now' has more importance than the 'then'.

If 'now' is the winner, reaching that degree of understanding is followed by amazement or confusion or deception and ends in admiration or hate or a victim, and the variations of them all.

Why You Cry

In one moment, an emotional feeling turns into the feeling of a coming cry.

It feels like a hole is being dug slowly into your heart.

Most often, in real life, it happens at the moment of facing a great change in life or condition or environment.

The topic often changes, with the tears still rolling down your face and the subject becomes guilt or a feeling of abandonment or loss.

It may hit you hard and fast or it may snuggle up to you and nudge a bit with small little triggers.

Small little things that set off the reaction and make you tear up, or frown or your lip starts to quiver or your hands shake.

The feeling you have is surrounded by its result. Its result is the same result, in levels of intensity.

Crying encompasses everything from more than one tear, to bawling so much the sewers need flushing.

Looking at the cause of crying as logical, and common-sense compliant, it would be attributed to the reactions you have to it.

The emotion of sadness would be a medium low cry. A cry would be one or less tears.

Not all tears make it out on vacation. Most, through an emotional person's life, will just keep the eye moist and normal. Sort of hard to identify as a cry.

So is love. It might be helpful to imagine a hole.


When two people interact, one has a stronger influence on the other than the other has for the other. Confusing?

When two people interact, one is to some degree, dominant while the other is to some degree, submissive.

The condition of which, is from the perceiver's perspective.

That means what you see it what you get.

If you see, by desiring and pretending, or by detesting and abusing, the only time it won't rule your life is when you are the one using it.

Being the one using it can range all the way from completely stuck on yourself and doing for everyone else because it does everyone for you, to not caring about anything or anybody and not caring if you even lived.

Both of those ranges come from a long-term memory running on its own with just a non-zero consciousness going on upstairs.

Read The Brain is a Wonderful Thing to understand memory in the basic 'starter' level.

The reaction to the middle's opposite is the opposite of not caring without being caring.

You don't walk around remembering to breath. You breath normally on your own, totally and completely unconsciously. The brain is doing that through your long-term memory at very low amplitudes. Raise those amplitudes and you'll breath on demand or breath heavily when scared or crying or anxious and expecting.

Air is not something you tend to remember. You are not remembering because you are not controlling. All memories enter your brain and get smaller as they get older. Its where time comes from.

When you do something so much it becomes normal and normal is the middle of a range.

Ride that range with other values that do not relate to the air in there (figuratively speaking) and you'll keep the air pumping nice and smoothly and low and steady. Training makes that happen too, but that is when somebody else or some other input like the media all saying the same thing, makes a way to think or an opinion or a prejudice remain steady and deep in the brain's memory running the show from the wings.

If you remembered the hole you may have felt it filling in a bit as you read the previous paragraphs. If not, go back, and read the piece again to this point. Go ahead, unless you've done it already, it won't hurt, but if you had done it already you would already know that.

If you find yourself in a situation that someone you love all of a sudden becomes someone who hates you there is indeed a reason why that happens.

Your long-term memory comes complete with a default value of non-zero awareness as it starts at non-zero values in cellular level until amplitude increases to make a new cell from the parent cell.

Once you reach the age where the amplitude of long-term matches pulse rate of the memory a new non-zero occurs. Pop.

It Takes about, nine months.


You develop an awareness of self, over the first few years of your life.

Now that self that is you, is watching what is going on not only on the outside of its skull, but inside as well.

Everything starts out at non-zero and increases.

That means, what will become the thing we call emotions, starts off as barely an emotion at all.

As new emotions emerge, they take the form of stumbling and stammering and shaky knees. If those things stop, the future emotion will be just fine. They stop when the future emotion is just fine.

The same thing applies to the large memories that fulfill more than one emotional void.

Those collections will tend to drive a person to the very thing, that person wants to stay away from.

If you are visual you crave interaction in the spoken word.

If you are aural you crave interaction in the visual world.

Desire is the result of how you happen to think, but not something you can't control.

If you have lost desire as a typical female, you have more of a hole representing how you feel about yourself, than you have representing what it is you desire. You just don't see the larger hole as it stays the same pretty much all the time.

If you have lost desire as a typical male, you have more of a hole representing the lack of your visual stimulation, than you have representing the desire you seek. You just don't see the larger hole as it stays the same pretty much all of the time.


If you have too much desire as a typical human, you have less of a hole representing how you feel about yourself (I'm stuck on me to some degree), than you have representing what it is you desire, (doesn't have to be yours, doesn't matter if it takes a lie to get it, doesn't matter if he might not turn out to be so nice after all, doesn't matter if he hit me, he won't do it again, doesn't matter if my kids see me beaten and crying, they are too young to understand (until they are too un-careful and get caught), it doesn't matter.

That hole is not that hole. It is the hole in your brain. No, not that hole either.

It is the hole your short-term aware self, perceives of as a place in its collection of experiences: that is missing.

When someone comes into your life that seems to fill that void almost instantly, that person can be just right or just wrong.

But either way, it does not matter. The thing you have in your memory of another person, pet, job, fixation and others that are indeed others and not because of you: is nothing.

You have the other person's nothing as your memory of that other person.

Whatever that other person does, that is not because of you: is not because of you.

It is because it filled a hole in you, and when that hole felt deeper from the pain of the injury of emotional contentment, it felt more, less full.

In reality, it was just your perspective.

Your short-term you is looking at the system's results it is getting and since it isn't being used for much else, it watches that system. It becomes normal to observe yourself.

It is amazing when, at times, one might catch one's self staring at something that until that moment was not a known condition.

It remains unknown after it stops in most cases.

That was the attention of the long-term memory working without your short-term awareness of it. It happened because your short-term was so low in amplitude, that a steady flow of pounding amplitude samples found themselves in a loop of their own in short-term and that becomes no loop at all.

A loop to remain a loop must have a non-zero opposing force. If not, it simply isn't there, although the cause of it continues to make it happen or it stops not being there, and causes that short-term instant reaction, rarely experienced as the blushed face, or the weird shake, or the dreaded tickle up your spine.

Hiccups come from long-term equal loops, as do most other physical maladies caused from within the body that are not the result of a genetic screw up or a foreign invader.

You aren't aware of any of that since it is indeed normal and just being watched with very poor focus.

When focus gets set in for the short-term process it is supposed to take focus on the short-term process. That is what having a short-term feed to long-term memory results in: a long-term memory of being short-term.


The minimum is there and you are conscious. But to be more than the non-zero of self-awareness you have to focus on you.

That is not an endorsement of narcissism. The focus on you is the you that is you, not the you that is your body.

The very word narcissism means to be in love with one's own body. It is used to mean being in love with one's own self.

You are your short-term process, hardwired, physical, perfect, closed loop memory system, filled with the amplitude of the frequency that together make up you.

You can sense you, as the person reading these words. You can watch the words as you scroll past them. You can dissect the words into parts like letters and small 1 2 4 things and then you can start to think of what it is you would like to tell the bozo who wrote this ridiculous, run on, obscure sentence.

You know you had started to read the words as if you were with them, and you know that I had once had them but now that you have read them, they are with you, and this is our first time to both know that.


So, hello. Again.


If that didn't happen, jump back up a few paragraphs and read them again. Trust me. If you didn't get, it will happen if you get it. Of course, if you got it, I'm just looking more ridiculous.

Your tears are falling when the void starts to fill up, with knowledge replacing nothing, but the space nothing leaves, in the perspective of the short-term mind you are.

You are actually experiencing awareness, of a topic, or subject, or fact.

The faster it happens, the more the reaction, all the way up to fainting.

But it starts out like a twitch or an urge or a sensation where having such a sensation would be considered arousal. Not having such a sensation addressed can cause the need to acquire that attention from someone else, even if it means stealing or kidnapping or abusing or raping or worse.

One thing does not lead to the other, they all live on the same street.

Focusing on your self means to pay attention to self, which means use long-term memory as the resource it is and let it tend to the mundane tasks of air and blood circulation and the rest. Let it do those things.

But don't let it live your life for you.

Reach in, to long-term memory and retrieve an awareness and then wonder if that is the only awareness you are aware of and give your long-term memory a moment to do its job and if you have not started twitching somewhere, in the face most likely, around the mouth most likely, but often near the nose, or the eye lids or brows, then you can rest assured you have found the cause.

If you don't twitch, don't pretend you don't twitch, just because you have no awareness, of having ever twitched, before.

Now you do. And in the coming days you will slowly feel that twitch. You will become aware of the twitch as it will bother you that you might have a twitch after all. What was that the significant other said about being able to tell when your lying, even those wee little what's best for you kind of all humans dwell in for mostly the wrong reasons.

Yes, that is suggestion. It is the way clairvoyants gain your trust. It is how con artists take your money. It is how you are led into bad things even though you don't want bad things. It is how things work.

Staying focused on one topic long enough will cause that topic to become normal.

Normal is the middle. It is where awareness happens.

If the awareness exceeds normal a leader could be born. If the awareness exceeds normal a ravenous predator may be born.

That depends on your long-term memory's history. Punished more than taught, as punishment is not the opposite of repetition, and makes a very bad training tool.

Repetition is the method for building knowledge, as well as awareness of conditions, morals, political gain and poll winning.

Yes, polls are used everywhere in this country of normal, average American statistical samples that are carefully selected and asked the same questions.

Those answers come from somewhere, before they are released from the mouth.

They come from what is normal or exceeds normal. If enough news programs have the same slant on stories, that slant will become the nation's mindset. And polls will reflect the news coverage and not at all the topics the questions address. That would be the present state of reliability for polling: 100% accurate as a reflection of human thinking processes and 50% wrong for the topics asked. It makes for a change in public attention to news coverage to create a surge in the polls.

People have to know, to have an opinion, not just be registered voters with the right to exclaim that opinion.

A major problem with being normal is the tendency to not have much variation in options for conscious decisions.

What is normal becomes what is blase' and boring, being as redundant as my limited use of the language provides.

Long-term is pretty much in charge, and things don't happen for you, and the end looks bleaker than any new beginning ever could: and you think that is you doing all of that. And you think you are depressed, or you think you are afraid to stand up and speak in school, or you think you are too scared to ever leave him, or you think you'll never amount to anything, or you think you are not worthy of something or someone, or you think you ...


Hello, again. Again.


The tears you observe, falling from your face, are not there, by any fault of yours.

They emerge just to show you, your most common, is not what you thought you observed.

When you recovered, even if it has not fully yet happened, even if, it is just, a small step towards you:


This song is presented as it would in a word script. The script tells you how to feel when singing those words and it will change when you are supposed to sing a different emotional feeling. It has a wonderful melody you can hear yourself if you read it slowly enough. It is sung from a female voice.


Contemplative soft and curious:


Lately I found, it crossing my mind, again.
Funny memories we shared, but that was then.
Today my heart is heavy with disappointment from scheme and lie.
I once loved her, now my eyes are opened wide.

Damaged, hurt and confused


I heard you laugh!
I've watched you cry!
We shared funny things, together!
And now its clear!
Why I'm so sad!
Disappointment seems to linger, forever?

Slowly: increase confused, it is the same result as becoming aware:


The linger will fade, as the clock ticks on.
But there's one thing I know, she'll remember!
I gave a piece of my honest love.
She'll always know that I once loved her.

Quick: Light bulb goes off, sing happy and proud:


I heard her laugh.
I watched her cry.
We shared common things, together.
Now, I know why I'm not feeling so bad.
Awareness: will grow on, forever!

You'll remember through time. You'll remember that I once loved her.

She was my friend.


So the situation, no matter how bad it may have been, leads people in the same environment, the same 'space', closer together, which for myself I can state has been very much worth the wait. Thank you to my wife, Q for providing the song.

How Your Dog And Cat Think Or Comprehending an Understanding

Human beings are constantly trying to recreate themselves.

Everything a human being does is based in procreation.

Procreation of a system!

Sometimes that definition of centrifugal force as applied to human beings, is misconstrued to mean centripetal force.

Most times a definition of centripetal force as applied to human beings, is misconstrued to mean centrifugal force.

Watching a tornado is one example. (See the bonus chapter.)

No matter how often the issue of proper definitions of acceptable terms is raised, that pesky centripetal force is assumed to be centrifugal.

The difference?

Centrifugal means to grow.

Centripetal means to shrink.

The physics behind all of that is worth looking into. Google is a nice place to start.

Alta-vista is not the same engine it used to be and actually does not spider enough.

Ask Jeeves is a waste of time, the results are nearly the same as Google and the 'ask a question' ploy was not funny when it was launched it sure isn't funny when a serious physics issue is up to argument.

Human beings seek to make 'closure', and they do it in everything they do.

It is an instinctive quality.

Instinct is the observable outcome of a specific system of brain configuration. Combine visual and aural dominance, speed of reduction to motion and speed of memory and the potentials for variety are vast, as nature would be proud to display.

Speed of memory determines the depth of memory: as neurons are created, by the neuron before them, having needed an exhaust pipe.

After the glia system (made up of the Astrocyte, Microglia, Oligodendroglia, Satellite and Schwann cell group) reacts to the expulsion of neuron amplitude into the vast open spaces of inter-neuron void they commence to construct a new tube.

The tube is intended to relieve the contamination of the wide-open spaces, and is formed from the head out. It starts at a new neuron and reaches a point where it can't go any further, as it's cellular composite APE amplitude matches the amplitude of the PE charged contamination.

At that point, growth of the new neuron is complete, with one more event.

As with all matter and cellular structure, a vibration of opposing charge energy states, each with their own amplitudes and charge state combinations, that inter-laps and competes for dominance creates cohesion: a centripetally forced bond brought about by the depth of energy pressure: the reduction of charge state relationship to non-zero.

In the connection space of the synapse exists a centrifugal force.

It expands and competes with the centripetal force of the opposing charge state of the new neuron.


The same thing happens to the squeaky neuron, leaking so much, to require a new connection.

Similar PE charge states attract each other, while the opposing APE charge state opposes itself.

Electromagnetic energy, the destructive, decaying and bright power source is made of positive and negative polarities. It is the anti-positive charge state of the Universe. It shines so well because it reflects.

The positive charge state of the Universe was unknown by science until a famous fake IQ-test ad spokes-model considered a cosmological constant.

It was only contemplated, but was not as alluring as the marvelously small club of experts, in the quantum physics society's amazement with their own intellect.

To speak out loud, to proclaim at all that one might actually understand quantum physics is to commit the highest act of blasphemy.

Those who adhere to the mysticism can enter the club door, while those who pretend to scoff at its very myth-ticism are dismissed as less worthy specimens.

Cosmology wound up screwing that up.

It was just like that branch of physics, not quite good enough to the quantum society and far too good for the particle variety, the cosmological constant appeared to be glowing in the sky, with about as much shine as the rest of physics would ever honor cosmology with.


It is no wonder it is called 'dark energy'.

It is that very 'dark energy' that is small enough to remain non-zero as its energy value never changes, yet with amplitude, the thing that makes it life is large enough, within the newly formed synapse to reach out with a push.

It had been doing that for a short time while the glia academy was replenishing the troops from that last neuronic episode.

It pushes with its amplitude. If the amplitude is greater than the neuron's lattice can handle it will be discharged.

It was that discharge process that caused a left turned into cosmology, but that is a good thing.

It does not take much to put two and two together for those able to count or to hear for that matter. Visual thinking persons may not desire to assume what that meant but that is ok as the text is written for visual readers, and this was just added in case an aurally thinking person who happened to emulate the topic; happened to have put up with the writing style long enough to get this far.

When a neuron insists it needs a tail pipe it is because it was formed the same way. That forming happens in a methodical manner where a pulsed rate of amplitude is steadily pounding merging amplitude into the last neuron in the line. Small pounds make small tubes extending out. Large pounds fill those tubes with amplitude, extending them until they reach the end of the DNA's instructions.

The larger the amplitude is, the faster the pathway will string out.


Depending on the , the progression wave of the amplitudes (the frequency set up by the pulsing of the wavelets as in the harmonic of a piano tuning board) and the degree of amplitude stimulation through input, the outcome will be more than one tail pipe.

Every so often there is more than one newly requested neuron in the same job order. One will present the output it produces, to the next neuron in line, and the other will pass on a similar value to a third neuron, which if emotionally motivated, might be said to have been left at the alter from a previous 'every so often'.

As amplitudes pulse their way down the string, pounding at the door of each new exit, from both sides of the lattice (as the other two are taken up with the original connections of its own existence), that second neuron forces a connection of its own out the other end.

That connection is headed the other direction and it connects to the neuron in waiting, as there is that opening from the previous return pathway string when it faced no opposing charges and wound up waiting.

Depending on the species, some pathways may have one of those extra 'every so often' neurons every 30 or so neurons in the pathway. We would call them dolphins and we would have a lot in common.

Some species may have one of them every 40 or so neurons in the pathway and we would call them chimps and bonobos.

Some would have them every 40, some every 60 and some more. Some would have them only once and others (like the poor ostrich) would not have any at all. Those who have only one or in the near range get caught up in loops, that continue even after the brain has been removed from the process.

Running around like a chicken with its head cut off really has a cause.

Input from sensors, like eyes and ears and nostrils and pressure and temperature and sonar and other forms of sensors, is presented in each of those brains to a memory process running, to some degree faster, than the pulses being received from the sensor.

The pulses are all of the same base frequency range for that species. Some of the same species have similar and some have the same frequency. Most have completely different frequencies: all come in both even and odd frequencies.

If two frequencies are not within the tolerance of the range they will not co-exist as one, which is a good thing actually. A horse and a cow might get the milk to market faster but it sure won't taste very good.

The speed of memory processing determines the degree of precision memory will provide.

The amount of return pathway sister neurons and their reverse running pulses within a given range of memory string neurons, determines the resolution of the memory.

Input is presented in its clearest form. The closer to the same resolution, the more brilliant and familiar the input will be.


Some neurons will have numerous connections and will work just fine as each connection is pulsed at a different clock rate allowing the neuron to process multiple pathway information. An efficient system would not make one part to do only one thing the same way.

Nature is balance. Whichever sensory input is the predominant input of the species, will determine the primary, but not exclusionary, sensory memory pathway.

Dogs are aural creatures. Cats are visual creatures.

There are individual exclusions.


Dogs with visual dominance are dainty and cute.

Dogs with aural dominance are tough and resolute.

Cats with visual dominance are fluffy and cuddly.

Cats with aural dominance are aggressive and resolute.

Creatures within a species come in both species compliant and species opposing states.

But those are the species. The species are made up of two parts. The genders.

Dogs that are male tend to aural dominance.

Dogs that are female tend to visual dominance.

Cats that are male tend to aural dominance.

Cats that are female tend to visual dominance.


There is also the issue of gender compliant and gender opposing states.

If you get a female aural dominant cat prepare to get an earful, as aurally thinking female cats are vocal, very proactive vocal: while visually dominated male cats are vocal but more in reaction.


The memory process speed, combined with the return process speed (which is matched to the speed of the main process but sampled less), creates not only the clarity and resolution of the memory when presented to input for comparison: it creates the degree of intellect the animal will display.

Dogs and cats, as well as all other animals, except the Homo-Sapien stop at that point in feeding long-term memory.

Creatures in the Quadra-Pedal family and the lonely dolphin share in an evolutionary trait of exponential progression that forms a short-term memory.

It takes up a great deal of room compared to other brains.

Short-term memory works the same way, except when it reaches the end of the line, the real end of the line for that species, the last neuron in the chain is only able to output one initial new leak as the amount of return pathway neurons has reached the level of the DNA's instruction ability.

new leak has one choice. It connects to the last reverse order return pathway neuron and a loop is created. A hardwired loop is when the memory of something can never go away.

It is the thing humans search for in everything. It is a loop. They even make dogs sleep on loops.

Humans put loops in everything. They loop their bodies as if the body was loopable, even if it is subject to the natural bright and shiny energy state's cannibalistic decay of itself.


They hold things together with loops. When it comes time to get out of something they do not want to be tied to any longer they sever the string.

They see things as strings, as order to them, needs to be in order. A string appears to be in order, but unless it returns, it will never know it.

It takes a loop to know it is a loop. A string is able to be a loop but only if the amplitude does the work since the frequency charge state is locked in position, individual to the creature.

Every one of the return pathway feedback neuron connections poses a threat to become an amplitude loop.

Do something the same way enough times and a loop is found that matches the depth of the training. The longer the training, the deeper down the string of long-term memory trained amplitudes travel.

The deeper down, the more clarity and resolution: therefore the more reliable, and in the case of dogs, the more 'good boy' or ugly looking human created snack bar that a self respecting alligator wouldn't touch.

Even repetition of taste winds up becoming a habit.

Chewies are the best type of snack if one is forced to perform. Not sure what the real name of the thing is but they call it chewies, so presumably it is called something else for real. Humans have a way of naming things based on what they compare to instead of what they really are.

Where cats have been considered to be 'finicky' they are actually no more or less attentive than a dog but have less return pathways, which is a nice comfort in the broader view of things.

Not having as many, they tend to wander off, if the stimulus is not intense enough to be new and exciting, and worthy of further enlightenment.

Cats are quite intelligent but not quite like a dog.

Dogs, in general are fairly intelligent creatures. Dogs tend to anticipate more where cats tend to react more. The greater the stimulus the greater the reaction, which sometimes leads all the way up to: "hasta-lavista baby".

Visual intelligence of a species is not conducive to that species' dominance in the forest. House cats are not like their bigger cousins the lions and tigers and mountain variety.

Those creatures are aural with the aural thinking male being the big kahuna while the intensity of amplitudes to a young budding king may be strong enough to overcome the knowledge and strength of the elder.

The dog cousin, the wolf, from whence dogs flew, is visual with the visual male being quite the difficulty in mixed company. Domestication is the process of selecting the opposing dominance in long-term memory from the main species. They make nice pets. Not wolves, dogs.

Everything that comes in through a sensor has a pathway.

Since sensors are individual things, the more important they are the more focused they are. That makes for a focal point and also for a blurred peripheral collection. Focal point is a nice and crisp resolution where memory of clarity is able to compare equally, while peripheral sensors are not a nice and crisp resolution and often match not so fine memory values.

There isn't anything very mystical about memory. But it does take intellect to break it down so it can be understood that is based on potential instead of just what has always been the potential in the past.

It is a good thing that dogs and cats do not have the complete deep and very fast running short-term memory problem.

All those things dogs and cats do that are embarrassing are only embarrassing to the short-term memory creature who knows they know about them.

That would only be humans as even the bonobo and chimp get their long-term memory from long-term memory. Only humans get it from short-term memory.

There's something good, possibly, about remembering who one is, and being aware of the fact that one is at all, but it also has its downside.

That short-term loop feeding long-term memory is a true gift. It is a true pain if it isn't used very much.

One would tend to remember memories more than input and therefore become a product of their past, just like dogs and cats, but they would know about it.

How your dog and cat thinks is pretty much the same way just not the same way.

It's the same, because brains work the same way, regardless of what it is, they are inside of.

It is not the same, because a species may be visual, but half of its genders will be the opposite.

Half of the opposite will be its opposite.

The aural dog will share the title with visual dogs, which are more like very vocal cats and are unable to comprehend the importance of dog things.

The visual cat will share the title with the aural cat, which are somewhat like pit bulls with a wannabe attitude and very little muscle to make it happen.

They make up for it with claws that are far too sharp for house use.

Humans also have a way of ignoring things that do not fit a loop.

There is no room in most humans for the concept that the loop, which is the human, could be one of a collection of creatures with loops. A loop is a grand thing. If one group of humans has a common thought, whether it is intellectual or not, they will form a loop of their own and call it a club, as if it could be used to hit things with, or a society like they are afraid of admitting its nothing more than a common loop.

Dogs and cats have loops too. Those loops are amplitude based where the human short-term, direct feed to long-term, memory loop is frequency based. It's a lot like hardware versus software but made of different charge states so one cannot decohere and destroy the other.

When software in short-term catches up to hardware, humans become aware, and then they start to ponder all those memories they are aware of, and most succumb to the temptation and stop right there. They remain what they were remaining as, until they are nothing but remains.


Of course, when the coherence of the mixture of the two breaks down to a degree below the adhesion ability the bond breaks and the body dies. That happens to all of us, sooner or later. Don't dwell on it.

Dogs and cats are the same way, except the burden of that 'conscious' decision to use consciousness for more than the minimum required for awareness. The power of that will is free for the taking, but most fail to even try.

Dogs and cats do not have to deal with that issue. There are other issues to deal with. Humans insist on training silly tricks which are pleasing to do, but must be silly to watch, especially if one were aware of it all.

It is a comfort to know the very persons humans rely on to protect them from harm, their soldiers, are trained in the same way. War is silly, but it appears to be necessary from time to time as other humans, often do not agree.

And there is that nagging issue of sleeping.

Humans sleep with that long-term awareness of self and wake up to the same self with no change at all. Unless of course, they wake up in one of those system wavelengths, that have amplitudes high, and the body's clock has found its own loop, of a standard general time, to turn on the input sensors.

Yes, humans have long-term memory loops too. They just call them habits.

Human dreams are just as weird as dog and cat dreams, but humans are able to sit up and shake it off, as it was only a dream. Some humans don't find that reasoning believable or have not heard it before and seek out the comfort and guidance of a field of human endeavor the fathers of dogs would be proud of. The Con Artiste'.

Being humans, that variety of wolves doesn't look a thing like the real McCoy. They act the same way and think the same way, even frequency brains, but they don't act the same way and don't think the same way.

They think with awareness, but retain the inability to feel remorse. They act through deception, where the real article would just eat you.

Don't know about you but it would be preferable to expect to be dinner and attempt to avoid it over knowing one was dinner and still offer second helpings.

The potential of those types of cats and dogs is very, very slim: a required non-zero value only. Fluffy and Spot are good pets. Hug them more. They can't get over it.

Treat them bad and they probably won't get over that either. But a dog will have a much greater chance than a cat. Dogs are aural and aural means reasoning by potential, where cats are visual and visual means reasoning by comparison. There are those pesky exceptions.

A species compliant male cat, like the juvenile delinquent downstairs, is a male, which should be aural in a visual species, which is normal for that species and tends to appear overly inquisitive when in reality he is just controlled more by his environment. Being visual and reactive at the same time makes for a cute kitten.

Compare your cat to the stereotypical aloof and disposable creature humans think cats are, and they will be more than normal in their stride to prove your assumption was correct.

Dogs left out on a chain are not pleased to succumb to the restriction, but if started young, where no alternative was presented, they will become their environmental restriction, just like a young human child will emulate and then become what they got the most of at a young age.

Waking up for a dog and a cat is a rather confusing moment.

One moment the dog could be enjoying a romp in the woods behind the house with the fear of getting caught looming in the background but nothing at all like the sudden imposition of a hallway floor and bright lights.

For just a moment, the female dog, non-compliant visual thinker, will ease into the completely new environment where the aural dog might be startled.

The aural cat will freak out.

It might manifest itself as a noise upon waking or perhaps a kittery feeling. But the difference in environments doesn't last long in most cats. Some: like a black haired fat monster in the household will wake up and proclaim his disagreement.

Humans can ease that transition by responding to the call of confusion with a normal and soft touch and voice. Do it the same way every time and after a short while the cat, usually the male dominant aural thinking type 'Tom' will ease into the awake state like the black splotched white female does, but not every time. Must admit those are the times worth being within eyesight. Quite funny.

It isn't easy being a dog or a cat. It is even harder trying to explain a dog and a cat's thinking process by comparing them to humans. But they are the same. Memory works the same way. Humans just get that extra level and then add the hardwired loop, which causes the higher amplitudes to rush through the loop eventually reaching the level where that formerly missed second neuron output pops its own leak.

It searches for a connection: a synapse in waiting, from a similar sized amplitude-carrying neuron and finds it in the feed to long-term memory. And there it is: Self-awareness.

The entire system is connected to a hardwired loop forcing all amplitudes to be passed through it and storing those amplitudes in the moving memory. Dogs and cats don't have that problem.

Dogs and cats view themselves by not viewing themselves. They view personal results as a collection of results. The part with the least amount of use (the tail) is often erroneously viewed as a different result, not part of the collection. It is hilarious to watch.

Dogs and cats view others by not viewing themselves. They view results, as individual results, not the same as the result that is a collection of results.

Dogs and cats communicate with each other and can communicate with humans if humans would only come on down to the level of intellect and the level of system ability dogs and cats are stuck with.


Dogs and cats react to what is good by seeking it out and react to what is bad by avoiding it. Avoiding may mean attacking if the ability to avoid is restricted.

Humans react to what is good by desiring it, especially if it resembles a loop, whether it is real or imagined and react to what is bad by testing it to see if a loop exists. Desiring may mean attacking if the ability to desire is restricted.

Humans can do much better than that.

Dogs and cats can do what dogs and cats can do: make for companionship and trustworthy respect, only if they are given companionship and respect worth being trustworthy of.

Humans are the same way but humans can choose to ignore either option.

Your dog and cat think. They think just like a human thinks. The process is the same. The outcomes are the same. They are just not aware of it.

They are also without the ability to watch it happen. That comes from the short-term process of humans. It watches the long-term and is a result of it, as long-term is also a result of short-term. A loop is an interesting thing, especially if the watching short-term memory process is unable to determine a cause of the watched long-term's output. Can be very depressing.

Dogs and cats have only long-term memory. Reactions to things already reacted to will guide output. The faster the process is, the less reaction will be shown.


If you want to predict what a child will be like when it grows up, just take a look at the 'close' family pet. It is telling you the current results of its environment where the human child will only surprise you with the same appearance later on. If the pet is tied up outside don't bother. That dog is waiting on death and that's about it.

Even though dogs and cats do not have the ability to watch their own brain in progress, dogs and cats do have the same progression of memories.

A memory is a result of input and memory. The first input has no memory to compare to so it creates a lower amplitude of itself. The next input becomes the first real memory.

Not being aware of mental processes is a lot like what your computer comprehends. It takes in data, does something with it and spits it back out. It has no concept of ever having data. Computer memory is of specific data, not data that relates to all other data before it like the memory cats, dogs and humans have. There is no loop in computer memory. In fact, if one develops humans call that a bug.

If it were that simple, humans would never have concocted the computer idea at all.

The progression of events, starts off high and decays.

Things are made of what came before them, which is bigger than what it produced.

Physics wants things to be smaller as they view causes as being smaller and collective where nature has another idea about that concept.

It is why puppies are smaller and grow into adults.


It is why kittens are smaller and grow into adults.

It is why the concept of decay needs to start large or there is nothing to decay.

The offspring are smaller. They may grow into larger but when they do, they do not make larger puppies. They start the cycle all over again.

It is the same in every amplitude-based system.

If you merge two amplitudes you wind up with a new amplitude that is a combination of the two parent amplitudes. It is not larger it is smaller.

Over distance, it is also longer.

The actual process is exponential in reverse. Here is an example.

Let's say the bone has a value of 10 and the chewie has a value of 30. (You know the preference already.)

By adding 10 and 30 and dividing by 2 we get the average of 10 and 30, which would be 20.



The new thing is smaller than the combination of the two things that made it.

It is larger than the smaller parent, but smaller than the larger parent. It is a new thing that is a combination of two things.

After a while of the boredom of the same flavor the bone may gain a value of 30 itself since it is not present and therefore desired.


If 30 and 30 are merged in average we wind up with 15. And the change in eating habits looks like we've decided not to eat at all.

If a smart human is watching over the selection of snacks they would reduce the amount of chewies slowly until the value might match the desire for the bone and the bone will be eaten. If not, the poor dog might appear to be hungry but refuse to eat.

Balanced diet means something physical as well as motivational.

The same process occurs in everything. It even happens in human conversation.

Joe Six Pack meets the woman of his dreams in a bar and walks up to start the connection. The woman of his dreams is in his dreams. The woman in the bar is not a dream.

He opens his mouth and out pops an opening line.

The woman takes in the opening line and compares it to every other opening line she's ever been presented with and out pops the response required for that type of opening line.

Depending on the type of woman she is the response Joe Six Pack will receive will be different as the reactions of her long-term memory are based in her previous long-term memory.

If Joe Six Pack is typical for an uninvited intrusion the result in response might take the form of a serious set back. That would be applying a much higher value to the value presented by Joe.

If Joe's opening line rated a 10 and the woman's response rated a 100, Joe would be feeling a 55 and that is far too intense for his lame opening line.

If a dog is sitting still in a nice 1 condition and the door bell rings with a 100, the reaction the dog will have will be a 50.5, unless the door bell rings all the time and its value is reduced through repetition.

Humans call that process 'negotiation' and they think it only happens when they want it to. It happens in everything.

If one would happen to be a visual female cat, one of those species compliant creatures, when that doorbell rings the result will be fleeing for cover. There is a nice place at the bottom of the bed where there is no blocked entrance. She goes there all the time.

It is understood that in the first few months of that black blotched white cat's life she lived in an environment that was rather chaotic. Her response is based in her responses before. She's pretty quick too.

So are the responses of the woman in the bar. And for that matter, so is the opening line of the Six Pack family member.

Humans who grow up in an environment of hate are going to hate and not know why. And since they won't know why they won't know what not hating is like. Hating is normal to them.

Normal is whatever has been put in most. That includes any of the serious misunderstandings of humans without much knowledge.

Bigotry is one example.

Dogs are bigoted by hardwire. Once a dog learns something, everything remotely not connecting to it will be wrong. Humans are the same way but humans have that second process, the short-term process that can override a past experience with direct application of evaluative intellect.


Most choose not to use it, as most do not know it is there to be used.

That is not surprising since the study of human thinking has centered around where and not how.


The Scientific Explanation of Homeopathy And The Placebo Effect

Science would have us believe there is only one perspective on existence and its systems, only one perspective on its laws, where any failure of measurement of the accepted perspective, is deemed fatal of the challenge to the logic of the one-dimensional perspective developed from one-dimensional curiosity.

Science views the state of charge to be the electromagnetic spectrum, with its two parts, the positive and negative polarities.

Science deems what it can observe to be made, of equal parts, but what causes it to be made, of a singularity.

That itself is one view of existence. Another is religion.

Religion views the state of charge to be of the spiritual and physical spectrum, with its two parts, the good and evil.

Religion deems what it can observe to be made, of equal parts, but what causes it to be made, of a singularity.

Science calls its singularity 'the laws of physics' of which many exist, but there is no binding universal connection between them, as scientists the world over seek a grand unified theory of everything: none of which will agree upon a single unification unless it uses the present perspective; of which science is sure there is only one of.

If there were proved to be more than one perspective, science would be forced to recognize the other perspective, and things that use force, might be replaced with things that suggest.

Religion calls its singularity 'creator of the laws of physics' of which there exists but one in most modern religions, and a multitude of them in ancient religions: but there is no binding universal connection between them, as religious scholars the world over, disagree on whether the creator of the laws of physics is their perspective of a creator of the laws of physics.

If there were proved to be more than one perspective, religion would be forced to recognize the other perspective, and things that use faith, might be replaced with things that know facts.

Faith should never be the reason by which one refutes fact.

Faith does not apply alone to religion.

Science is based in faith.

Where religion has faith that either a creator will do their bidding as called, or the creator is indeed a creator at all: science has faith that either a singularity, in the form of a law of everything, will come at their one dimensional call, or the singularity, of a law of everything, is just a theory of everything, or perhaps just the easier theory of unification, at all.

So far, nothing from either camp has proven either claim.

Religion cannot prove that faith causes a response. Whether it is in a massive cross-world prayer test or the seemingly miraculous recovery from illness, the faith being studied is not a singularity of its own. It is made up of faith that a creator exists, as in, "I, believe in God." Or it exists in the form of an opposing potential that the faith is based in the expected outcome of will or a request, as in, "I believe, in God."

Science cannot prove that faith does not cause a response. Whether it is in a massive cross-world prayer test or the seemingly miraculous recovery from illness, the faith being studied is not a singularity of its own.

Science's method of observation prohibits the potential that the observation is wrong.

Any mention, or alluding to an alternative observation is an immediate threat to existing known laws, and either laughed away as the paranormal, or refuted away as the ridiculous.

A common method of scientific one-dimensional testing is called the placebo.


The Skeptic's Dictionary says it best:


"A placebo (Latin for "I shall please") is a medication or treatment believed by the administrator of the treatment to be inert or innocuous. Placebos may be sugar pills or starch pills. Even "fake" surgery and "fake" psychotherapy are considered placebos." [1]

"Researchers and medical doctors sometimes give placebos to patients. Anecdotal evidence for the placebo effect is garnered in this way. Those who believe there is scientific evidence for the placebo effect point to clinical studies, many of which use a control group treated with a placebo. Why an inert substance, or a fake surgery or therapy, would be effective is not known." [1]

"The psychological theory: it's all in your mind." [1]

"Doctors in one study successfully eliminated warts by painting them with a brightly colored, inert dye and promising patients the warts would be gone when the color wore off. In a study of asthmatics, researchers found that they could produce dilation of the airways by simply telling people they were inhaling a bronchiodilator, even when they weren't. Patients suffering pain after wisdom-tooth extraction got just as much relief from a fake application of ultrasound as from a real one, so long as both patient and therapist thought the machine was on. Fifty-two percent of the colitis patients treated with placebo in 11 different trials reported feeling better -- and 50 percent of the inflamed intestines actually looked better when assessed with a sigmoidoscope." [2]

"Some believe that at least part of the placebo effect is due to an illness or injury taking its natural course. We often heal spontaneously if we do nothing at all to treat an illness or injury. Furthermore, many disorders, pains and illnesses, wax and wane. What is measured as the placebo effect, could be in many cases, the measurement of natural regression. In short, the placebo may be given credit that is due to Nature." [1]

"Another theory gaining popularity is that a process of treatment that involves showing attention, care, affection, etc., to the patient/subject, a process that is encouraging and hopeful, may itself trigger physical reactions in the body which promote healing. According to Dr. Walter A. Brown, a psychiatrist at Brown University," [1] "there is certainly data that suggest that just being in the healing situation accomplishes something." [2]

"Depressed patients who are merely put on a waiting list for treatment do not do as well as those given placebos. And -- this is very telling, I think -- when placebos are given for pain management, the course of pain relief follows what you would get with an active drug. The peak relief comes about an hour after it's administered, as it does with the real drug, and so on. If placebo analgesia was the equivalent of giving nothing, you'd expect a more random pattern. [2]


These are observations made from the one-dimensional perspective permitted to science.

Science's perspective is amplitude based in its methods of measurement.

"Danish researchers Asbjorn Hrobjartsson and Peter C. Gotzsche", [1] challenged the placebo on the grounds that other criteria are in play having to do with the perspective of measurement:

"'The high levels of placebo effect which have been repeatedly reported in many articles, in our mind are the result of flawed research methodology,' said Dr. Hrobjartsson, professor of medical philosophy and research methodology at University of Copenhagen." [3]

Neither the challenge, nor the science (from within which the challenge arose) is able to contemplate an opposing perspective.

Such is the case with both the anti-magnetic Positive energy state of what has been known as the Neutronics Dynamic System (including brain dynamics) or NTC (Enticy), for short, described in the book "The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing": and Homeopathic Medicine. Chapter One of "The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing" introduces the concept of exponential processing, or exponential progression: where the perspective of the majority of the Universe is wavelength based.

Science's perspective is amplitude based. Logically, wavelength would be ignored.

Ignorance does have its way of protecting its right to exist, while it does represent a nothing.

Homeopathy is the science of an alternative perspective: described in a one-dimensional manner as "a system of medical practice that treats a disease especially by the administration of minute doses of a remedy that would in healthy persons produce symptoms similar to those of the disease." [5]

In reality, Homeopathy is the science of using alternative means to accomplish a natural progression.

Argument has not centered on the effects of homeopathic medical therapies. It has focused on the question of whether the homeopathic effect exists at all.

Science's faith, one based in "I believe, in Science'" cannot accept the potential that it could be possible to say: "I, believe in Science", unless saying so is in defense of the known perspective.

Not even the most respected scientists pretend to know what causes the most fundamental of things.

Not one would proclaim to possess the knowledge of the law of everything, so none present papers referencing any law.

They submit theories, which are less required of reputation when presented, than sticking one's neck out, to the ridicule of daring to posit a law, of universal magnitude.

The two parts of the scientific potential of addressing the existence of health have attempted one-upmanship at every opportunity.

Homeopathy is forced to defend its existence while producing results that are ignored, as they have not proven their existence.

Science is pleased to defend its perspective while producing only rejections based on that perspective and only skepticism in anything not already recognized.


That, in turn causes Homeopathy to seek to defend its existence, which is why it has not become accepted. One cannot accept a defensive science. As long as Homeopathy remains defensive, addresses its detractors instead of its accomplishments, the result will retain the circle of the two halves of science unbound.

Science is a whole, made up of perspectives of existence. One perspective has lingered as the focus of science ever since it first observed, yet the perspective of Homeopathy predates today's perspective.

The human mind's natural ignorant perspective of its environment is one of observer, not part of the whole.

Vast strides have been made in scientific endeavors, working the exponential progression exactly as it happens in every other progressive process.

Knowledge starts off low, slowly grows through trial and error and continues to grow in what appears to be leaps of paradigm shifts with a breakthrough eureka moment attached to each.

Such giant moments are the stepping-stones to further exponential growth.

In natural systems the process is fluid and predictable.

In human systems, including the system of knowledge and the utilization of it in the application of intellect there comes a time when the progression will require friction to advance as the allure of knowledge overrides the fear of intellectual application through the belief that "I believe, in Science" is actually, "I, believe in Science."


Individually, the scientist knows full well that the belief in his field is not the same thing as believing what his field's current knowledge holds as believable.

If that were the case there would be no new research, only re-research.

The single most important observable breakthrough in all of science, in both its forms, would be the realization that both were the same, only with different perspectives: that both science, in its two forms and religion, in its two forms are both the same: only differentiated by different perspectives.

Religion looks to a singularity as a source. Science looks to a singularity as a goal.

They are saying the same thing.

They are just looking at it differently, and therefore treating it, acting on it, believing it, working it, assisting it, supporting it, defending it and fighting for it: each determined to prevail against the other.

That is what two opposing halves of a whole, do!

They compete for dominance.

It is only in natural systems that dominance is equal to both parts, by their having a vibrating exchange of equality, resulting in adherence and cohesion. Mass.

Only in natural systems will that mass be observable in two parts: mass with energy that shines, and mass with energy that does not shine.

There being two types of energy marked by their ability to 'shine' or not, are quite indicative of the one-dimensional perspective of science.

Science deems that which is, to be positive, and that which is not, to be negative, and they represent a negative charge as a 0, which all school children know is nothing. Only in the world of mathematics will a negative number represent something.

Negative becomes nothing and science is left with the conundrum of a return to the singularity where the smallest of things is a thing itself and not made of any other thing.

Science's belief is that in a fundamental, there must only be one part.

Since science is ruled by the measurement of amplitude, the one part will always be a smaller part. This forces science to act as if "off springs" were their own "parents".

The other perspective is that a measurement of wavelength will result in the cause always being larger in wavelength than the result. Results are offspring. Not parents.

Science is not concerned with causes, only sources.

Sources are causes without a cause.

There are event progressions that work like science requires them to work in order to be measured correctly.

Those event progressions are the ones started by experiment.

They take the form of high amplitudes and short wavelengths and are observed to decay.

A wavelength of 1hz with amplitude of a hypothetical 10 is equivalent to a wavelength of 10hz with amplitude of 1. The additive and multiplicative inverse is equal.

Science then imposes that perspective on progressions being received instead of transmitted and they observe a phenomenon called the red shift, or Doppler effect.


Light is observed as being redder when from a distant star and it is attributed to a special effect when in reality the observation is from the receiving measurement and not the creating cause and is therefore upside down, or backwards.

It is impossible to discern the cause of anything if one is only looking at its result.

Placebo effect is considered to be a bad thing for an experimental test when no consideration is given that if there is such a thing as a placebo effect it has to also apply to the results of the real medication being tested as well.

That would result in drug trials being dismissed for approval when the placebo effect would have to be deducted from the real induced effect.

Wonder drugs would not be so wonderful if the reality of their successful use was indeed partially due to the same effect that other drug potentials are dismissed for possessing.

A test that uses a real pill in one group and a false pill in another group, is assuming the false pill will be considered placebo.

Every person in a drug trial is aware they may or may not have the placebo and they are equally attentive to its potential. The fact that a placebo may have a high degree or a low degree of result similar to the real treatment must likewise be applied to those who had the real treatment.

Those people were not using washed out brains that did not think of the same potential of cure or relief. They were taking part in a clinical trial the same as the placebo patients.

If there was any placebo effect at all in one control group, the exact same effect must be applied to all control groups. Only the scientists, after the trial, know which was which.

The trial patients were equally as blind as the trial and therefore equally felt the same potential.

Where a drug may only provide minimal effect for its claims and a control group experienced maximum effect for placebo, the control group did not know they were taking the placebo. Neither did the real group know they were taking the real drug.

An equal degree of positive results in the real therapy group must be attributed to the rate of placebo effectiveness in the control group.

There is no form of logic that is able to dispute it.

Science has always ignored what it cannot see.

That includes the logic of why a placebo effect is important but must be attributed to all participants in a trial to accurately display the therapeutic validity of a proposed regimen.

An example of this is contained in [6].

"After thousands of studies, hundreds of millions of prescriptions and tens of billions of dollars in sales, two things are certain about pills that treat depression: Antidepressants like Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft work. And so do sugar pills." [6]

"A new analysis has found that in the majority of trials conducted by drug companies in recent decades, sugar pills have done as well as -- or better than -- antidepressants. Companies have had to conduct numerous trials to get two that show a positive result, which is the Food and Drug Administration's minimum for approval." [6]

"What's more, the sugar pills, or placebos, cause profound changes in the same areas of the brain affected by the medicines, according to research published last week. One researcher has ruefully concluded that a higher percentage of depressed patients get better on placebos today than 20 years ago." [6]

"The new research may shed light on findings such as those from a trial last month that compared the herbal remedy St. John's wort against Zoloft. St. John's wort fully cured 24 percent of the depressed people who received it, and Zoloft cured 25 percent -- but the placebo fully cured 32 percent." [6]

In reality, with a 32 percent placebo result St. John's wort would have cured -8% while Zoloft would have cured -7%.

In other words, they do not do anything the brain is not able to do on its own as long as the brain knows what to expect. And there is an outcome from expectation. We examine it later.

Brain processing is running faster than input so the 'expectation' will result in 'anticipated' results.

"The confounding and controversial findings do not mean that antidepressants do not work. But clinicians and researchers say the results do suggest that Americans may be overestimating the power of the drugs, and that the medicines' greatest benefits may come from the care and concern shown to patients during a clinical trial -- a context that does not exist for millions of patients using the drugs in the real world." [6]

Or Americans may be so deluged with drug knowledge that the mention of a cure potential invokes the desire for cure, which invokes the condition a cure would represent and having taken the medication, whether real or placebo, sets up the cure's potential, whether real or placebo. Tells the body to react to that condition. But we'll state that later.


Seattle psychiatrist Arif Khan, studied the placebo effect in trials submitted to the FDA.

"His analysis of 96 antidepressant trials between 1979 and 1996 showed that in 52 percent of them, the effect of the antidepressant could not be distinguished from that of the placebo. Khan said the makers of Prozac had to run five trials to obtain two that were positive, and the makers of Paxil and Zoloft had to run even more. He analyzed trials that were made public in the medical literature, which tend to show positive results, and those that were not." [6]

"'It speaks to the difficulty we have in classifying and identifying the disorders we deal with,' said Thomas Laughren, who heads the group of scientists at the FDA that evaluates the medicines. 'Psychiatric diagnosis is descriptive. We don't really understand psychiatric disorders at a biological level.'" [6]

If he would read "The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing" he would understand many psychiatric disorders at the system and biological level.

"'We like to think we give people treatments and they get better,' said Andrew Leuchter, a professor of psychiatry at UCLA. 'We have this fallacy of success, but we don't know in any individual why they get better. Undoubtedly one of those factors is the time we spend with people and the connectedness that gives patients.'" [6]

Actually, those are only contributing factors to the event taking place in the brains of each clinical trial participant.

"In January [2002], Leuchter published a study in the American Journal of Psychiatry, in which he tracked some of the brain changes associated with drugs such as Prozac and Effexor, which are called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. When Leuchter compared the brain changes in patients on placebos, he was amazed to find that many of them had changes in the same parts of the brain that are thought to control important facets of mood." [6]

"Patients who got better on placebos showed heightened activity in the prefrontal lobe, and that activity continued to rise during the eight weeks of the study. Those who responded to medicine initially showed a decline in prefrontal brain activity, then a rise that eventually tapered off. Thirty-eight percent of patients responded to the placebo, and 52 percent to the medicines." [6]

Which would logically mean that only 14% of those tested in the trial actually responded to the drugs.

How can the FDA permit the sale of any drug where only 14% of trial respondents had a benefit?

They ignore the placebo effect unless the placebo was present, which the patient of either type of therapy was not aware of.

"Once the trial was over and the patients who had been given placebos were told as much, they quickly deteriorated. People's belief in the power of antidepressants may explain why they do well on placebos. Patients in trials are not told which they are receiving." [6]

Belief is another way of saying 'anticipation of expected outcome'.

'Belief' exists in all participants of a drug trial, whether they were real recipients or placebo recipients, yet science does not recognize the logical, only the observable.


"Some observers assert that the medicines themselves work because of the placebo effect, but most psychiatrists believe the drugs do have an effect of their own. Drugs are a 'placebo-plus' treatment, said Helen Mayberg, head of neuropsychiatry at the Rotman Research Institute at the University of Toronto." [6]

No they are not. They are a 'minus-placebo' treatment.

A main problem here is the use of the term 'belief' at all.

'Belief' implies a preconceived desire to anticipate an expected outcome. In most cases, the actual 'belief' is one of skepticism as most persons taking part in a clinical trial are not short time sufferers. Those people have been through a lot in search of a cure and have very little to believe in.

A belief would require a short-term conscious decision.

What is going on in clinical trials is a long-term sub or non-conscious perspective.

The participants of a clinical trial do not outwardly and consciously declare the drug to be the cure. So what is it that is happening in long-term processing of participant's brains that results in the placebo effect?

An idea of the explanation comes from side effects.

"'Many children with ADHD experience serious side effects, prompting their parents to stop the medications," says study researcher James Bodfish, PhD, professor of psychiatry at the University of North Carolina. 'The question is, 'Is there a way to produce similar effects of the medication with fewer side effects?''" [7]


"Researchers say that in their study, about 40% of children responded well to half their regular ADHD medication dose -- managing their symptoms with fewer side effects -- but only when given in conjunction with a placebo. Children who took lower doses without the placebo had fewer side effects, but didn't manage their conditions as effectively. They were given their regular and lower doses, with and without placebo, in alternating weeks over the three-month study." [7]

Side effects are not the result of the placebo for persons without the prior knowledge of what a drug is supposed to do. Children with ADHD are not aware of a condition without ADHD. How could they 'believe' a cure was possible when they do not know the condition of a cure? They cannot.

So how does Homeopathy stack up in the 'belief' question versus what is now known of the fiasco of testing for anti-depressants?


Back to the Skeptic's Dictionary: [8]


"One criticism of homeopathy is that it takes the "cookie cutter" approach to treatment: one-size-fits-all. No matter what ails you, treatment with a diluted like agent is the cure. Experience teaches otherwise. For example, the treatment for scurvy is not more scurvy but vitamin C; the treatment for diabetes is not sugar, but insulin. There seem to be countless examples one could come up which would contraindicate homeopathy as a reasonable approach to the treatment of disease. Thus, simply because it is sometimes reasonable to treat like with like (e.g., polio vaccines), it does not follow that it is always reasonable to treat like with like. It is misleading, however, to compare the use of vaccines in medicine to homeopathic remedies; for, medical vaccines would be ineffective if they were as diluted as homeopathic remedies." [8]

There is that one-dimensional perspective again.

Homeopathy is not treating like with like.

"In short, the main benefits of homeopathy seem to be that its remedies are not likely to cause harm in themselves, and they are generally inexpensive. The main drawbacks seem to be that its remedies are most likely inert and they require acceptance of metaphysical baggage incapable of scientific analysis. Homeopathy 'works', just as astrology, biorhythms, chiropractic or conventional medicine, for that matter, 'work': i.e., it has its satisfied customers. Homeopathy does not work, however, in the sense of explaining pathologies or their cures in a way which not only conforms with known facts but which promises to lead us to a greater understanding of the nature of health and disease." [8]

The misinterpretation of the initial 'likes with likes' theory rests with Samuel Hahnemann, an eighteenth century German physician. [9]

His was not the first though.

"Paracelsus declared that if given in small doses, 'what makes a man ill also cures him,' as long ago as 1534." [9]

The fault lies with Hahnemann, as it was his misinterpretation that led to the misinterpretation of Jacques Benveniste, which led to a serious set back for Homeopathy.


Benveniste's assertion that water has 'memory' has recently acquired a supporter:

"Psychologists at the University of Arizona in Tucson have made some startling claims recently that could provide an explanation for many disparate phenomena including homeopathy. They reckon that memory is not merely a function of brain cells and computer chips but something stored by everything in nature down to the atomic scale." [9]

"Schwartz, a professor of psychology, neurology and psychiatry, and director of the Human Energy Systems Laboratory, and psychologist Linda Russek, co-director define memory as not just the conscious retrieval of information, but any kind of stored information, whether it can be retrieved, or not. Memory they say is created when the parts of a system interact with each other, sharing information and energy. They cite as a basic example two tuning forks set to the same pitch. When one is struck, its vibrations will make the other vibrate as well. But Schwartz and Russek posit that, over time, the vibrations between the two instruments circulate so what is being stored is the relationship between the two tuning forks." [9]

"They claim that such non-neural memory might help explain homeopathy following along the lines of Benveniste's notions of water's memory." [9]

Relationship between two tuning forks would be analogous to intelligence, while the retained effect by one substance after the mixture of another substance is not memory. It is the way interactions in nature works.

Read chapters one and two of: "The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing", for the equation displaying this Universal system.


But it was the misinterpretation of the rejection trials sponsored by The Royal Society that did the most damage.

The 'memory' acting in human trials is human brain memory.

Their test involved human cells placed into diluted water with the expected outcome being, that if the water itself had 'memory' the cells would have reacted to the solution.

The water itself does not have memory. It has amplitude changes left over from the mixture with the original substance.

The amplitude difference is not evident unless it comes in contact with another amplitude and that would be memory within the brain's system.

The test never could work outside of a brain's involvement and did not kill the science of Homeopathy; it strengthened the issue that science has only one perspective.

That one perspective results in missing the not so obvious.

In placebo involved trials the not so obvious is the equal distribution of any potential effect. Science does not impart that effect on those persons who had the actual medication, although not doing so literally VOIDS EVERY SINGLE TRIAL HAVING USED PLACEBOS.

There is NO logical argument to escape that serious error.

In observations of charge, science observes one charge type, assigns it positive and negative values and then proceeds to wonder about the Universe that is made up mostly of an opposing charge to the one observable unless it is at vast distances and then that observation is only of its effect, not its charge.

A dual perspective is necessary to evaluate causes.

Science has assumed that a duality is present in things at the 'quantum' level. In reality, two different results of the same cause are being observed. Without having the second perspective science is unable to correlate the two observations and therefore rests on spookiness, nothing more than the mysticism of ancient Homo Sapiens seeking to understand their world with no knowledge at all.

Science has made great advances in medicines, mostly without understanding the causes of the malady the medicine is intended to alleviate.

So science is still working with no knowledge at all.

Without the opposing perspective there can be no determined cause.

Science is made up of two parts just as religion is made up of two parts.

One part of religion adheres to a single source of life and matter that resembles something the predominant culture is able to relate to, and is revered as a father figure who watches over and answers requests and fulfills one's needs.

The other part of religion adheres to a multiple source of life and matter, each of which resembles the things of the predominant culture that each refers to, and are revered all, as participants in the greater existence where one may answer requests, another watch over and yet another fulfill one's needs.

The opposing view of religion is the refutation of religion.

It is likewise in two forms.


The atheistic view that "I believe, in God" is a misguided statement, and the agnostic view that "I, believe in God" is a misguided statement.

They are not the same goal with different perspectives. They are different perspectives of the same observation.

The opposing religious positions merge to form varying degrees of dominance and resistance to the combination of both statements: "I believe, in God" and "I, believe in God." The result is denominations of the same general belief structure, as well as differences in methodology and argument of dominance versus admission of submission to anything or anyone.

The NDS or PE (Positive Energy) charge state depicted in Chapter one of "The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing" is shown with an alternative measurement scheme.

Detractors of the binding of electromagnetic charge have largely ignored this positive reference measurement.

Instead, they tend to seek explanations from the one-perspective viewpoint. That results in accusations of leaky transistors and other absurd conclusions.

Measuring differently is totally foreign to them so they ignore it.

An opposing perspective is totally foreign to science so they ignore it.

Homeopathy is an opposing perspective to medical science's perspective and no less credible than the brute force, side effect ridden medical science of today.


What is the difference between natural cures to reduce a disease and a pill that causes more symptoms than the disease it is meant to eradicate?

Results are different.

If a drug is intended to solve a problem and causes so much as one more problem when using it, the drug is not worth using. How simple can an argument get?

The Universe is not made up of inefficient processes.

Homeopathy is efficient natural medicine.

Medical science is all about inefficient applications of brute force and the entire testing procedure is a fraud.

Psychiatrists and Psychologists are trained to observe and deduce based upon the assumptions of previous observations and deductions.

Not one observation and not one deduction are based on what is really happening inside a brain. Not one is with knowledge. Every single one is with conjecture and subjective experience from one perspective.

It is those persons, who have not one clue how the brain works, and are licensed to work on its results, that prescribe the medications that any logical evaluation of testing technique would prove beyond any doubt, do not work any greater than a placebo and in many cases even less.

The cure for what ails any brain is the brain itself. It is not the artificial application of brute force.

The brain's synaptic chemical transmissions are controlled by a series of variables that are natural and can be either increased or decreased by both internal and external natural input to the brain.


Science ignores that perspective and heads straight into changing the chemicals that bridge synapse connections without any regard for the rest of the linear progression of that memory pathway.




Homeopathy takes the position that a condition of normalcy disrupted by abnormal conditions can be returned to normalcy if the brain is given the impression that normal is possible and in doing so, the chemical reactions of a working brain will cause signals to be sent to rid the body of the invading intruder at a greater degree than the current presence is and cause the return to normal.

"Mean effect sizes for changes in depression were calculated for 2,318 patients who had been randomly assigned to either antidepressant medication or placebo in 19 double-blind clinical trials. As a proportion of the drug response, the placebo response was constant across different types of medication (75%), and the correlation between placebo effect and drug effect was .90. These data indicate that virtually all of the variation in drug effect size was due to the placebo characteristics of the studies. The effect size for active medications that are not regarded to be antidepressants was as large as that for those classified as antidepressants, and in both cases, the inactive placebos produced improvement that was 75% of the effect of the active drug. These data raise the possibility that the apparent drug effect (25% of the drug response) is actually an active placebo effect. Examination of pre-post effect sizes among depressed individuals assigned to no-treatment or wait-list control groups suggest that approximately one quarter of the drug response is due to the administration of an active medication, one half is a placebo effect, and the remaining quarter is due to other nonspecific factors." [10]


This study was published with a disclaimer:


It reads: "The article that follows is a controversial one. It reaches a controversial conclusion-that much of the therapeutic benefit of antidepressant medications actually derives from placebo responding. The article reaches this conclusion by utilizing a controversial statistical approach-meta-analysis. And it employs meta-analysis controversially-by meta-analyzing studies that are very heterogeneous in subject selection criteria, treatments employed, and statistical methods used. Nonetheless, we have chosen to publish the article. We have done so because a number of the colleagues who originally reviewed the manuscript believed it had considerable merit, even while they recognized the clearly contentious conclusions it reached and the clearly arguable statistical methods it employed." [10]

The study was published in 1998 by the journal of the American Psychological Association:.

Where the study was criticized for its methods the point was missed.

If a placebo effect was found in participants of a trial it MUST BE APPLIED EQUALLY TO ALL PARTICIPANTS OF THE TRIAL. Studying that after the trial has nothing to do with the protocols of each trial.

"The basic tenet of homeopathy is that disease can be cured by giving the patient minute amounts of a substance that can induce similar symptoms to the actual disease itself." [11]

In reality, Homeopathy is the process of giving a patient a minute amount of the EFFECT of a substance without giving the substance which fools the body to assume the substance is present in greater amounts than it is and assigns the degree of natural disease fighting immune system function necessary to rid the body of the greater degree of illness.

The result, in most cases, is the attack of a malady by more than an ample supply of immune system function.

It is the same process the brain will cause to occur in the placebo effect, except it is physically and not mentally caused.

"Another tenet of homeopathy is that you are treating the patient rather than a particular disease or organ system." [11]

Which is in part correct, but only in part.

The treatment is based on using the person's systems instead of a headlong attack on the specific malady, ignoring and oft' times damaging the person's systems.

"Homeopathy is not presently accepted by traditional medicine in the United States. Although there are a few health caregivers that subscribe to homeopathy, they are few and far between. One of the basic problems with homeopathy is that it was founded before the principles of modern science were developed. Homeopathy was developed before the dramatic advances of chemistry and physics in the 1900s. Dr. Hahnemann had no idea what the molecular structure of a substance was. Unfortunately, as science progressed, homeopathy did not attempt to incorporate any of the basic scientific principles into its basic tenets. Certainly, modern medicine treats numerous diseases with medication and the mechanism of action is unknown, even though the treatment is successful. The problem with homeopathy is that it is totally unscientific and it runs counter to the basic laws of chemistry, physics and common sense." [11]

No it does not.

It runs counter to the single, one-perspective, half observed method of science.

It IS the other method. It IS the other perspective. It IS the missing part of the whole of medical science.

Combining the two will result in cures.

Ignoring one perspective results in nothing more than what science has achieved: great strides in producing drugs that do no better, and in many cases worse, than placebos.

The conclusion from The Health Gazette by Karl Hempel, M.D. was: "Homeopathy has no scientific basis whatsoever, and the concept of potentiation by dilutions is absurd when modern basic scientific principles are considered. The argument has been made that homeopathy works by some, yet unexplained, mechanism. This certainly could be true, but it would be easier to accept if clinical trials could consistently show a difference between homeopathy and placebo." [11]


1: Drugs work by some unexplained mechanism.

2: Modern drugs show no difference in their relation to a placebo.

3: Modern basic scientific principals are based on one perspective only.

4: The mechanism Homoeopathy works by is explained above.

5: Clinical trials for modern medicine are no better in results than those for Homeopathy.

6: The placebo effect MUST be applied to all participants of all studies they are used in.

7: Science will not agree. Yet.


That does not make science right.


It makes science, ignorant, and comfortable remaining that way.

But don't take my word for it. Do another clinical trial.


Music - Memory - Talent

In the book "Strangers To Ourselves" Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious, Harvard University Press, 2002: Timothy D. Wilson, Sherrell J. Aston Professor of Psychology and Chair, Department of Psychology, of the University of Virginia at Charlottesville, poses two questions:

"Why it is that people often do not know themselves very well (e.g., their own characters, why they feel the way they do, or even the feelings themselves)?" [1]

"And how can they increase their self-knowledge?" [1]

"There are undoubtedly many reasons for a lack of self-insight; people may be blinded by their hubris (a favorite Greek and Shakespearean theme), confused, or simply never take the time to examine their own lives and psyche very carefully. The reason I will address-perhaps the most common of all-is that much of what we want to know about ourselves resides outside of conscious awareness." [1]

"The idea that a large portion of the human mind is unconscious is not new and was Freud's greatest insight. Modern psychology owes Freud a large debt for his willingness to look beyond the narrow corridor of consciousness. A revolution has occurred in empirical psychology concerning the nature of the unconscious, however, that has revealed the limits of the Freudian conception." [1]

"Initially, research psychologists were skittish about even mentioning nonconscious mental processes. In the first half of the twentieth century, the behaviorist onslaught in psychology was fueled by a rejection of mentalism; behaviorists argued that there was no need to take into account what occurred inside people's heads, consciously or unconsciously. In the late 1950s, mainstream psychology took the giant step of rejecting behaviorism and initiating the systematic study of the mind. But the first experimental psychologists to leap off the behaviorism bandwagon said little about whether those aspects of the mind they were studying were conscious or unconscious. This was a taboo question; few psychologists wanted to jeopardize the newfound respectability of the mind as a scientific topic by saying, "Hey, not only can we study what people are thinking; we can study what goes on inside their heads that even they can't see!" In the psychological laboratories of academe, few self-respecting psychologists wanted to risk the accusation that they were, God forbid, Freudians." [1]

"But as cognitive and social psychology flourished, a funny thing happened. It became clear that people could not verbalize many of the cognitive processes that psychologists assumed were occurring inside their heads. Social psychologists, for example, were developing models of the way in which people process information about the social world, including how they formulate and maintain stereotypes of other groups, judge other people's personality, and make attributions about the causes of their own and other people's actions. The more researchers studied these mental processes, the clearer it became that people were not aware of their occurring. When researchers debriefed participants about what they must have been thinking during their experiments, they were disconcerted to find that the participants often shook their heads and said, "That's a very interesting theory, professor, but I'm afraid that I don't recall having had any thoughts remotely like that."3 Most of the mental processes studied by cognitive and social psychologists turned out to occur out of view of the people who had them. This fact became impossible to ignore, and theories of nonconscious processing began to creep into experimental psychology." [1]

"Still, many psychologists were reluctant to use the word "unconscious," out of fear that their colleagues would think they had gone soft in the head. Several other terms were invented to describe mental processes that occur outside of conscious awareness, such as "automatic," "implicit," "pre-attentive," and "procedural." Sometimes these terms do a better job of describing a specific type of mental process than the general term "nonconscious." The study of automatic processing has flourished, for example, and a lack of awareness of these processes is only one of its defining features." [1]

"But the terms "unconscious" or "nonconscious" now appear with increasing frequency in mainstream journals. A picture has emerged of a set of pervasive, adaptive, sophisticated mental processes that occur largely out of view. Indeed, some researchers have gone so far as to suggest that the unconscious mind does virtually all the work and that conscious will may be an illusion. Though not everyone is prepared to relegate conscious thought to the epiphenomenal refuse heap, there is more agreement than ever before about the importance of nonconscious thinking, feeling, and motivation." [1]

"The gulf between research psychologists and psychoanalysts has thus narrowed considerably as scientific psychology has turned its attention to the study of the unconscious. This gap has not been bridged completely, however, and it is clear that the modern, adaptive unconscious is not the same as the psychoanalytic one." [1]

The use of terms and the history of their use are fraught with attempts to explain from a reductionist, reverse engineering direction.

As written and explained in "What You See, Is Not What Causes What You See", reverse engineering results in "Further illusion!: compounded upon existing illusion." [2]

"Entire industries are wrapped around the lack of a definition of intelligence and seek to replicate what no one can bother with defining. The defenders of the church of science derail and excuse the beliefs of religion without offering so much as a single alternative of law. Spirit, soul and the rest of the beliefs of life held by varied religions are no more based in observable fact than any theory science has offered to refute them. The details are argued while the theories that make the belief system of religion are no less theories than the theories of science that dares claim dominance." [3]

The use of ineffable terms such as 'unconscious' and 'conscious' results in the creation of error-ridden assumptions. Consider the term 'unconscious': according to Merriam-Webster it is "the part of the psychic apparatus that does not ordinarily enter the individual's awareness and that is manifested especially by slips of the tongue or dissociated acts or in dreams" [4]

That speaks of the product, not the system or function.

Psychology is consumed with the product and assumes the product is its own creation.

Quoted from the August 30, 2002 Science Journal article in the Wall Street Journal by the eminent and brilliant minded author Sharon Begley, Dr. Timothy D. Wilson is quoted as giving this definition of 'unconscious': "mental processes that are inaccessible to consciousness but that influence judgments, feelings or behavior". [5]

Wilson's contribution is the elimination of the product as the focus of study and the refocus of attention to the cause: the process or system.

Begley injects, "But this isn't Freud's unconscious, that maelstrom of primitive emotions and repressed memories." [5]

"Instead, the unconscious being excavated by scientists processes data, sets goals, judges people, detects danger, formulates stereotypes and infers causes, all outside our conscious awareness." [5]

The problem with this assumption is indicated in the deduction from that statement.

"In fact, there is a growing consensus that the unconscious is a pretty smart cookie, with cognitive capacities that rival and sometimes surpass that of conscious thought." [5]


"Conscious thought"?


What is 'conscious thought'?


Would it not be wise to have a working knowledge of a higher order system before imposing a lower order system with superior qualities?

Definitions of 'consciousness' are a dime a dozen. Well, actually less expensive than that.

It has its own international symposium. It has its own peer group. It has its own web site. It has thousands of potential explanations of what it is. It even has (like intelligence) a new field of 'artificial consciousness' [7], without so much as a single knowledge of definition.

David Chalmers, Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona, provides the web site. On the site as of this writing, there are 457 papers on the 'philosophy of consciousness', (each with their own guess), 360 papers on the 'science of consciousness', (each with their own guess) and 467 papers on 'other philosophy of mind' topics. The site reads like a Googlism. Every conceivable (but there will be more) guess, maybe, possibly, may, might, could attempt to explain a system and function by looking at its results.[6]

The study of consciousness is so confused. A recent power-point presentation on that web site is entitled "How Can We Construct a Science of Consciousness?"

At least Wilson jumps past the ignorance of observation and wonders about the system.

Begley sums it up in a follow up piece: "We don't have meaningful access to the causes of our feelings. Just as introspection can't reveal how we process sights or access memories or perform many other mental functions, so, too, is it stopped short at the door to the unconscious. Faced with this brick wall, when we try to introspect about our unconscious feelings we wing it: We come up with whatever's on our (conscious) mind." [8]

So it is that hundreds of researchers can have different guesses as to what consciousness is. Each one is observing their own conscious awareness and deducing what it means to them and imparting that meaning in potential of causes. The same thing is happening in evaluation of 'unconsciousness'.

Nothing can ever be determined, if the thing being determined, is its result.

The definition of 'conscious' is provided in "The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing", where reference is provided to the entire body of work, as understanding where 'conscious' comes from, requires understanding of brain function.

If the reader has not yet consumed the book, please do so before reading the balance of this paper, as the details are referenced and not repeated here.

The state of being 'conscious' is the state of being aware of a system or process. It is the non-zero condition of self-awareness.

It comes from short-term processing in the human brain. Long-term processing, actual memory retained over time, is where 'subconscious' or the above referenced 'unconscious' comes from.

Since the term 'unconscious' is used to denote a lack of awareness it cannot be accurately used to denote the lowest level of awareness, therefore the reference is made to its process as 'long-term' processing.

"Why it is that people often do not know themselves very well (e.g., their own characters, why they feel the way they do, or even the feelings themselves)?" [1] In all creatures with brains long-term processing is the process responsible for all brain function. In humans (Homo-Sapiens) short-term processing is added and is able to overcome long-term processes, but is most often, not utilized for more than its non-zero value of 'conscious' awareness of self.

A Report from Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada [9] opens with a rather unique, but often found amazement: "Watching sports on television may exercise your brain, if little else. A new study shows that whether people are watching someone do something or doing it themselves, their brains work in similar ways." [9]

Here is observation at work, deducing and reverse engineering.

"Researchers say this explains why armchair quarterbacks and goalies sometimes move in sync with the athletes they are watching on television." [9]

"Sometimes people actually move, but what we are arguing is that, even when they aren't moving, parts of their brains are engaged in similar actions," said Randy Flanagan, a psychologist at Queen's.

It almost makes one wonder if science believes the brain is indeed a digital computer where memory does nothing until it is called upon to cough up its collection of 0's and 1's.

"The phenomenon occurs with spectators, not with people playing a game. The brain of a goalkeeper in a soccer match, for example, is probably not mimicking the actions of a player approaching with the ball, but is preparing for a save, Flanagan said. His study builds upon research conducted on monkeys, where scientists found that when the animals watched a researcher pick up an object, the same brain cells fired as when they picked up the object themselves." [9]

"Brain-imaging studies in humans have also suggested that the brain patterns of people watching someone doing a task are similar to those in people doing the task. Flanagan's experiment, conducted with Roland Johansson of Umea University in Sweden, was designed to test the theory that a mirror-movement system exists.: [9]

Yes, it would seem the possibility that the brain's continuous memory processing is foreign.

All that is needed now is a new term. A term that would place a 'mark' on the 'new' observation and make it something it is not at all related to.

Flanagan compared the eye movements of human subjects stacking three wood blocks with the eye movements of people who were watching them do the task.

"'The trick here is that it is generally assumed people don't move when they watch someone else, but they do move --hey move their eyes,' Flanagan said."[9]

"He found that people watching the exercise did not simply follow the movement with their eyes. Their eyes shifted in anticipation of each move, as did the eyes of those handling the blocks." [9]

"In fact, the eye movements of those stacking the blocks and those watching them were nearly identical, meaning the brain activity of both groups was almost certainly similar, Flanagan said." [9]

"His findings, published in the current edition of the scientific journal Nature, are the first direct proof that a mirror-movement system exists." [9]




A mark is given to an observation that has absolutely NOTHING TO DO with what causes it.

"Flanagan said the mirror-movement system might play an important role in understanding the actions of others, and could be involved in how people learn." [9]

Yes, it could. But it is not mirror-movement. It is the way the process works.

It happens quickly, almost 'instinctively', or does it?

It happens as long-term processing is running faster than incoming input is presented to it and the output is running faster than incoming input is presented to it.

It means memory is not static. It is fluid and moving at all times. When a memory matches an input the more it matches the more the output will anticipate the result. Sometimes this causes errors. In sports and military exercises, it causes victory.


The first output to motion from a brain, especially human brains, comes from long-term processing with input. It is happens, literally, before the short-term 'conscious' process becomes aware of it and if the short-term process is nothing but the non-zero value of conscious self-awareness it will be missed completely.

"Why it is that people often do not know themselves very well (e.g., their own characters, why they feel the way they do, or even the feelings themselves)?" [1]

Most of the processing of most humans happens before the short-term is given the result of long-term processing.

"Dr. Wilson finds that the reasons people offer for their (unconscious) feelings -- why they love their partner or feel as they do about a product or social issue -- are wonderfully detailed, but often hogwash." [8] The 'feelings' a person is 'aware' of are the result of short-term processing, while the memories responsible for those 'feelings' are the result of long-term processing.

"Maybe you tell yourself that you enjoy your job because you like your colleagues or wield power, or that you want to have kids because you love the little things. But "insights" like those, born of introspection, often misrepresent the situation, as you see when you subject them to conscious analysis: "Wait a minute, my colleagues resent me and the boss always vetoes my decisions." "I have zero patience!" If you have a gut feeling about love, work or life, it's probably best not to analyze it to death. The unexamined life has its virtues." [8]

The 'unexamined life' (long-term processing, subconscious, unconscious, call it what you wish) does indeed have its virtues. It also has its faults.

Long-term memory is the past. It is everything your short-term processing has placed into it. It is the recollection of who and what you are. It is the peripheral input of visual and aural sensors not centrally focused that match lower focused input values and result in deceptive reactions and improper assumptions.

Long-term memory in all other brains (non Homo Sapiens) is the only memory available (minus some Quadra-Pedals and Dolphins) but the major difference between Homo Sapiens and all other brains is the manner in which long-term memory receives its input.

In modern humans, long-term processing outputs internally to short-term processing after being fed by sensory inputs.

In modern humans short-term processing outputs to long-term processing and the 'conscious' awareness of self, the awareness of a process or system sets up over the first few years of active life, being planted in long-term and relevant to the 'now' of short-term as it is a product of it.

In all other brains there is either no short-term process at all, or the short-term process outputs nowhere but motion while long-term feeds its own memory and no sense of self emerges.

Consciousness occurs in short-term processing without dependence on long-term recall, where self-awareness, the value greater than the minimum, emerges from long-term via short-term.

But long-term processing does have its virtues.


Long-term is responsible for talent, for rhythm, for adaptive creativity (enhancements) and for other things, we'll discuss under the topic of 'faults'. It depends which form of long-term memory is dominant in a brain, (how much clarity or 'return pathway' resolution is evident) as to which form of talent may emerge or may be unable to emerge.

"We can see more now, so we don't listen as much -- and that may mean a shift in how we experience reality." [10]


No it doesn't.


Just for those who are long-term visual thinkers. Those people were hard pressed to 'fit-in' to a 'radio' society. With the advent of film and television the visual thinking population has found a source of relatable information.

Long-term aural thinkers are now standing by in the wings wondering whatever happened to music.

Music was the result of long-term aural thinking.

The great musicians of the past were long-term dependent aural thinkers with short-term dependent visual thinking processes who were able to translate a vision into sound and the result was breath-taking orchestrations.

Today's music is visually dominated. It is repetitive. It is background.

And the neuroscientists and their observational dependence are looking into it.

"Writing in the Journal of Neuroscience, they say musical structure - chords and scales - is connected with patterns found in human speech." [11]

"'You have many musical cultures that don't have a 12-note scale, they may have five notes, a pentatonic scale, and yet we could not find any that had notes that were not in the chromatic scale or very close to it,' David Schwartz of the Duke University in North Carolina told BBC News Online." [11]

"According to Dr Schwartz and his colleagues, it is because we are trained to by the sounds of speech." [11]

"The human speaking voice produces certain combinations of frequencies - pitches - and we look for those same combinations in music." [11]


No it isn't.


Speech is the other 'aural' thing observable. It is a result. It is not a cause. "One of the most pleasing musical chords is known as a major third and we find it familiar and pleasant, according to the new theory, because sub-consciously we hear the same combination daily in speech." [11]

"He said: 'The reason why our perception seems to correspond so nicely with the statistical structure of speech sounds is that the brain... has in some way internalized the statistical structure of the sound environment we inhabit..." [11]

"'There is this nice match between mind and world,' said Dr Schwartz." [11]

There indeed is. But it is not what the brain results in, it is what causes the brain, to result in speech and music.


Both forms of sensory input enter the brain from the same source. The ears.

Both forms of sensory input are stored the same way, as amplitude variations processed by neurons of the brain's internal system. There are no 'notes' and 'word's stored in your brain.

Both sensory inputs share the same memory pathways. They share the same processing speeds and they share the same outputs. One goes to the mouth to make sound, whether it is speech, grunts or Ava Maria in concert. The other goes to short-term processing where it is retained for just seven seconds and then fed back to long-term so it can be compared to more incoming sensory stimulation.

That feed of short-term to long-term is what gives you the ability to retain focus on a pattern of logic in brain function, whether it is listening to music or putting up with the staccato of a droll speaker at a symposium. The more droll the more chances the pattern will lull you to sleep.

Processing speeds in long-term determine the pattern of timing you are most comfortable with.

In "Music Is Processed by a Cortical 'language'-network" by Stefan Koelsch, Thomas C. Gunter and A. D. Friederici of the Max-Planck-Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience in Leipzig, the researches surmised: "In recent ERP-studies, brain responses reflecting the processing of musical chord-sequences resembled brain activity elicited during the perception of language. This finding raises the question of whether the brain employs the neuronal network known to be involved in the processing of language also for the processing of music." [12]


It is amazing how the study of Cognitive Neuroscience can be so dense.

Through what 'hole' in the head are these sensory stimulations coming from? Are they not the same 'hole' in the head? Are there not two of them? Do the two of them not make up a sensory 'field'? What part of 'duh!' do these researchers not understand? These people hold positions of authority in the field.

"All these brain structures are known to perform important functions for the understanding of language. Up to now, the neuronal network comprising these structures has been thought to be domain-specific for auditory language processing. To what extent this network might also be activated by the processing of non-linguistic information has remained unknown. The present data show that the human brain employs this neuronal network also for the processing of musical information (though with a right-hemispheric predominance), indicating that the cortical network known to support auditory language processing is less domain-specific than previously believed." [12]

So it has been 'believed' (which is all neuroscience is) that the ear must somehow separate speech from other sounds and send them into the 'speech center'? So now their search for the 'music' center will commence?

"Researchers from the Chinese University of Hong Kong studied 90 boys ages six to 15. Of the group, half had music training both from individual lessons and participation in their schools' string orchestras. When tested for verbal memory, the young musicians performed significantly better than their non-musical peers. No such difference was seen in tests of visual memory." [13]

"Researchers, led by Agnes S. Chan, Ph.D., believe that this relationship is due to the fact that both music and verbal memory are centered in the left brain. The music training may have served as a type of exercise for the brain, allowing it to perform better in other, related tasks." [13]

So the first thing cut in grade school budgets is music education? Makes sense to a visual administrator.

Marvin Minsky puts it in perspective: "In science, we always first explain things in terms of what can be observed. [Earth, water, fire, air.] Yet things that come from complicated processes do not necessarily show their natures on the surface. [The steady pressure of a gas conceals those countless, abrupt micro-impacts.] To speak of what such things might mean or represent, we have to speak of how they are made." [14]

And then proceeds to destroy the concept: "We will find the answer deep within the way the mind regards itself. When speaking of illusion, we assume that someone is being fooled. "I know those lines are straight," I say, "but they look bent to me." Who are those different I's and me's? We are all convinced that somewhere in each person struts a single, central self: atomic and indivisible. (And secretly we hope that it is also indestructible.)" [14]

"I believe, instead, that inside each mind work many different agents. (The idea of societies of agents [Minsky 1977; 1980a; 1980b] originated in my work with Seymour Papert.) All we really need to know about agents is this: each agent knows what happens to some others, but little of what happens to the rest. It means little to say, "Eloise was unaware of X" unless we say more about which of her mind-agents were uninvolved with X. Thinking consists of making mind-agents work together; the very core of fruitful thought is breaking problems into different kinds of parts and then assigning the parts to the agents that handle them best. {Among our most important agents are those that manage these assignments, for they are the agents that embody what each person knows about what he or she knows. Without these agents we would be helpless, for we would not know what our knowing is for.)" [14]

Agents. As celebrated as the good professor is, that is just plain stupid. It is no different than all other observational illusions brought about by imposing those most recently known things on the most recently investigated things.

If there were 'agents' in your head there would have to be some form of 'agent' 'central'.

Perhaps we could call it 'Q'. Or perhaps, if it is very creative, we could call it 'M'. Or if it wanted attention all the time we could call it, 'Money Penny'. The concept is absurd.


Yet Minsky does ask good questions.


"Then why do we tolerate music's relentless rhythmic pulse or other repetitive architectural features? There is no one answer, for we hear in different ways, on different scales." [14]


We 'hear' in the same way. We 'hear' through the same organ. Our brains process what we hear differently only by the degree in which our long-term memory speed matches the tempo of the music or a derivative of it.


What if there were 'agents' in your head?


"Here is a simplified four-level scheme that might work. Many such ideas are current in research on vision (Winston 1975)." [14]


"Feature-Finders listen for simple time-events such as notes or peaks or pulses.

Measure-Takers notice certain patterns of time-events like 3/4, 4/4, 6/8.

Difference-Finders notice that figure X is like figure Y, but higher by a fifth.

Structure-Builders notice that three phrases form an a regular 'sequence.'" [14]


"The idea of interconnecting Feature-Finders, Difference-Finders, and Structure-Builders is well-exemplified in Winston's work [1975]. Measure-Takers would be kinds of 'frames', as described in [Minsky 1974]. First, the Feature-Finders search the sound stream for the simplest sorts of musical significance: entrances and envelopes, the tones themselves, the other little, local things. Then Measure-Takers look for metric patterns in those small events and put them into groups, thus finding beats and postulating rhythmic regularities. Then the Difference-Finders can begin to sense events of musical importance-imitations and inversions, syncopations and suspensions. Once these are found, the Structure-Builders can start work on a larger scale." [14]


Hogwash, as Dr. Wilson would say.


Minsky describes how he would program a brain if he knew how one worked. The whole concept of 'agents' is absurd. Or did I say that already?

"The more regular the rhythm, the easier the matching goes-and the fewer difference agents are excited further on." [14]

The more regular the rhythm, the more it matches the rhythm of the brain's long-term memory process. It has nothing to do with mythical agents or other absurd observational junk science explanations.

Rhythm is rooted in the brain. It is how rhythm became rhythm. The standard repetition of rhythm matches the standard repetition of brain function.

One second of long-term memory function provides a wavelength of 60 beats per second. Two wavelengths of 60 beats per second makes up the typical modern dance tempo as beats per minute is x 60. A ballad at 60hz matches the brain's long-term process as it fits nicely into the regular rhythm of brain long-term processing at 60x60 or 3600 memory samples per minute.

Dance music at 120 beats per minute fits nicely into 60x60x2 or 7200 memory samples per minute.


It is difficult to depict a chart or working proof model to show frequencies of processing speed in the brain, but it is quite simple to show how the brain's processing frequencies match up to the standard 12-note 'tuned' piano keyboard.

The frequencies of musical notes are rooted in the brain, very specifically. [15]

Working in the 'average' of the Homo Sapiens brain frequencies (the creature responsible for music) as indicated by the WAVE CALCULATOR you may download and use in your computer as an excel calculating spreadsheet, these are the standard piano frequencies for the middle C octave.

We are using 'average' frequencies of the species in this depiction to show that a tuned piano, an exponential stepped process in frequencies itself, is so close to the average that it behooves thought of the specific frequencies necessary to have 'perfect pitch'.

Frequencies shown in black are piano key tuned frequencies. Frequencies shown in blue are human brain frequencies matching the piano's tuned keys.

If you access and download the excel calculator you will see the frequencies of the piano keys and the corresponding derivative frequencies of the human brain's base rate in long-term memory processing. The match is wonderfully shown as the brain is responsible for the frequencies assigned to keys on the piano and it is for a reason.

Why do all modern cultures use the same frequencies for music?

The human brain functions within a range of base frequencies for processing. (See The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing, for frequencies explanations.)

Ancient cultures used the five notes (referring to a piano keyboard) representing the sharp and flat notes of the modern music scale.

As complexity increased, seven more notes were added to the scale to create the now familiar 12-note scale.

All frequencies assigned to the keyboard of a piano are derived from brain function as the function employs exponential processing, as evidenced by the charts provided in the WAVE CALCULATOR.





A piano keyboard's notes are in exponential increments.


Download and use the WAVE CALCULATOR to see the human species' average brain frequency and how it results in every single note on a piano. You may adjust the weight of frequency kinds making up the average of the species and see how the difference in contribution to the species average changes the pitch slightly of each note.

Music and memory processing is the same thing.

The product of long-term memory (sub-conscious processing) (its output) is determined by its frequency of processing and the frequencies being processed.

The result is music, as well as literature and art and engineering and mathematics.

The system of long-term processing is its mechanism of connectivity and its process flow, including speed of processing, speed of return feedback for processing and the values associated with the input samples being processed.

The problem with long-term memory processing in humans is the existence of short-term processing. It is also the solution.

Short-term processing is YOU! It is the sense of self you feel as you. It is the awareness of your being.

Long-term processing feeds short-term processing so what long-term does on its own will only become known or become 'aware' to short-term (you will be aware of it) AFTER it has happened.

Only short-term is contemplative and reflective.

Long-term is reflective only.

If short-term processing is not in control of the brain's overall output then long-term processing is and that means the past is in control of the 'now'.


The past will do what the past has done before. It will have no relation to the 'now' perceived by you as your reality.

So when long-term acts without short-term control you will wonder 'how that happened', 'why did I say that', 'why am I nervous', 'what's wrong with my stomach', 'why are my hands shaking', everything the brain outputs to, is fed by both long and short-term processes.

If short-term processing is not in control, the past will rule your life and you will not be aware of why or how.


That results in stress and depression.


The solution is to engage short-term processing to overcome the past's desires to rule your life.

As a human, you are more than your past would have you be.

In the WAVE CALCULATOR file you will find the following charts, reproduced here in equal base frequencies where the standard balance of the species depends upon the population being made up of 22.36% even frequency brains, and 77.64% odd frequency brains.

Notes on the piano keyboard look like this. Both piano frequencies and brain frequencies are shown in the right graphic following the same curve.



Blue indicates the frequencies of the middle C octave on a piano while dark red indicates the brain frequencies responsible for tuning the piano to those frequencies.


If you do not believe the brain's own frequencies are responsible for the notes we consider as a given today, ask yourself: where did notes come from? The human brain!

Why does the odd or even state of a frequency make a difference in brain function?


Let us use this example:


Directing a 2 Hz tone to a wall and receiving it back will reflect the same frequency and cancel out the amplitude.



A good resource for noise cancellation is reference # [16].


It is the technology used to quiet helicopters and reduced job noise. [16]

Noise cancellation technology uses phase-shifted frequencies to remove amplitude and quiet the noise.

Phase shifting is inverting the wave. When the two are combined, the wave's amplitudes are nearly cancelled.

It is the same thing as a bounced wave returning to its source.

Now, imagine a closed system like the brain.

A symphony of different derivative frequencies stemming from the single base frequency of that brain sets up standing waves within the closed space.

If those frequencies are odd, the chances of any two wave frequencies blending and affecting another wave frequency in the same closed space with reduction of amplitude is slim.

If those frequencies are even the chances of any two wave frequencies blending and affecting another wave frequency in the same closed space resulting in reduction of amplitude is vast.

If a brain functions normally and its sampled amplitudes are coherent to the system making them without outside interference the brain will function as it is constructed. The frequencies operating in the PE (Positive Energy Spectrum, instead of the APE, Anti-Positive Energy spectrum [electromagnetic]) prohibits outside interference from environmental effect. (See chapter one of The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing.)

If a brain functions normally and its sampled amplitudes are corrupted and not coherent to the system due to interaction of standing waves, that outside interference will decohere sampled memory function and change amplitude without system function.

It results in a person with no relationship to consequence and no remorse.

If that person's brain is long-term dominant the result will be actions and reactions no greater in intellectual contemplation than a rabid dog.

Combine the lack of emotional relative-ness and relational consequences with the other variations in brain function (aural or visual dominance in long and short term variations) and it is no wonder, and no mystery, a life of crime is natural to some people.


Dr. Wilson asked:


"Why it is that people often do not know themselves very well (e.g., their own characters, why they feel the way they do, or even the feelings themselves)?" [1]

"And how can they increase their self-knowledge?" [1]


The answers to those questions, the understanding of brain memory processing, the understanding of the output of brain functions and the resulting observable functions performed by brain function provides the answers:

People often do not know themselves very well as most of what they do, think and act upon is based upon external input of the past without very much relation to control by short-term 'now' based self-aware processing.

They can increase their self-knowledge, become more self-aware, by increasing the dominance of short-term processing over long-term past memory and use long-term past memory for what the system architecture has dictated it is to be used for.

Long-term memory is not intended in humans to be controlling.

Long-term memory is not intended in humans to be controlling.

Short-term memory processing in humans IS intended to be controlling.

Talents stems from long-term memory processing variations and results in creativity based in known systems of execution. Those systems of execution are music, writing, art, sports and other system based tasks.




The talent for musical instrument playing and composition is derived from advanced long-term aural processing dominant over short term.


The talent for artistic representation, painting, sculpting and design is derived from advanced long-term visual processing dominant over short-term.

The best creators of the best musical and artistic works are also the saddest emotional subjects as the very gift of advanced long-term processing that gives talent on one side, provides vulnerability to depression and anxiety on the other.

Gaining short-term dominance over long-term talent generating processes need not result in the loss of that talent, but it can and often does result, in the neglect of that talent.

In creatures without short-term memory function we attribute the intrinsic traits of instinct to the output of the creature. Those are based in the architecture, the system, not the normally accepted concept of 'instinct'.

"...a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason..." [4]

Long-term memory processing has reason but it is reason based on previous reason, not evaluation of how that previous reason fits into the current 'now' condition of the environment needing the decision.

Addressing the product of brain function has been the focus of neuroscience, artificial intelligence, and psychiatric and psychological fields.

Psychiatry is "a branch of medicine that deals with mental, emotional, or behavioral disorders" [4] and has not one clue what causes mental processes, what emotions are and what behavior order is, let alone disorder.

Psychology is "the science of mind and behavior" [4] and has not one clue of what the mind is let alone how it emerges, what causes it, what can go wrong and why in most humans it is not even used, which results in behavior differences.

Neuroscience is "a branch of the life sciences that deals with the anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, or molecular biology of nerves and nervous tissue and especially with their relation to behavior and learning," [4] and is caught up in the observational parts attempting to make the behavior emerge from what the parts have done, with no relevance to what the parts do, how the parts work or what the system is within the brain that gives rise to what can be observed.

Artificial Intelligence is "a branch of computer science dealing with the simulation of intelligent behavior in computers," [4] without a clue as to what intelligence is let alone intelligence behavior, which is a result of the system that provides the architectural ability to display observable behavior.

News article after news article takes up space in the world's newspapers and magazines touting the latest claimed advance in understanding the brain and all fall short of the simple logic of reason itself.

Neuroscience enters the realm of mysticism, branches off into science fiction and rests heavily on folklore to attempt to make sense out of observational illusions.


A case in point is EARWORMS:


"A recent study by the University of Cincinnati looked at the affliction, which the author, James Kellaris, calls earworms from the German word ohrwurm. The ear part is obvious, but the worm part is not incidental. Dr Kellaris, a consumer psychologist, says it conveys the parasitic nature of the unending tunes, which lodge deeply in the mental continuum to be easily ousted." [17]

"He found that some 98 per cent of listeners will at one time or another be bothered by a tune that will not leave their heads. The study also showed that musicians and those with compulsive tendencies are the most afflicted." [17]

Compulsive tendencies and musicians have one important thing in common. Long-term is dominant. See above.

Short-term memory is where this problem starts.

Short-term memory is seven seconds long. Hear a tune enough times and the result will be your becoming 'aware' of the tune and that appears to be its playing over and over again in your head.

Long-term has fed a recognized melody into short-term where it is recognized as recognized, and the more it is recognized the more it retains in short-term and the more it will play over and over again. See The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing chapter two for a detailed explanation of how short-term loops emerge.

The University of Cincinnati has started a new brain science degree program.


Hopefully they will teach what the brain does and not what they see other brains do.

So far, the outlook is bleak.

"Dr. Wilson advises, 'We should let our adaptive unconscious do the job of forming reliable feelings and then trust those feelings.'" [8]


You had better not!


Read the next chapter for more on "earworms".


EARWORMS: Assumptions Based In Ignorance

"Research in the US has found that songs get stuck in our heads because they create a "brain itch" that can only be scratched by repeating the tune over and over." [ref] Scratching leads to infection.

"'The only way to scratch a cognitive itch is to repeat the offending melody in our minds.'" [ref] So says Professor James Kellaris, of the University of Cincinnati College of Business Administration.

Since The University of Cincinnati has recently established a cognitive sciences department it is a shame the first comments they share with the world are completely, totally and unconditionally: false.

It helps to understand what causes a song to become 'stuck' in the head, like Kellaris' "cognitive itch".

The human brain has a great evolutionary advantage. The lack of use of that advantage is evident in modern day science and the halls of mental institutions world wide.

It is a customary belief of neuroscience that memory is split horizontally: left and right brain locations. That essentialistic viewpoint has led to one error of assumption upon another for far too long.

Human brain processing is vertical. The lower level is long-term memory (the culprit responsible for aggravating melody repetition as well as emotions, reactive responses, the entire psychiatric industry and Dr. Phil).

Long-term memory is what animals other than humans are stuck with. The senses feed the brain with input, where it is combined with more pulsed memory than it is receiving (anything less and we would all be 1:1 digital stupid machines). The computational result of that combination in non-human brains is fed directly to long-term memory where the process starts all over again.

Feed something in enough and it remains high in memory. It is how dogs are trained, soldiers are molded and lies are believed.

Humans have the advantage of short-term process memory. Short-term in humans is essentially another brain (although it is only an addition provided by evolution). It receives the outputs of long-term and sensory computation and retains it for a maximum of seven seconds. During that seven seconds the human short-term brain is able to either ignore it or question it. There are no other choices. For short-term memory to no longer offer a choice at all, a realization must have been reached. (A realization is when the input to short-term equals the output of short-term, it is when the 'light-bulb' goes off in your head and you know, that you know.)

Human short-term memory processing feeds human long-term memory (only non-humans have long-term feeding long-term: it is what makes the human able to be aware of self, to be conscious and to have the ability to ask 'why', and the recall of self, that why was asked and answered or not.)

Memory, in both short and long-term versions in humans is similar to a bouncing ball. Drop a rubber ball on a hard surface. It will bounce half way up each time it bounces. That is the same as memory, working its way down the pathway for its sensory use. The older memory gets the smaller it is. That reduction in size (amplitude) accounts for the concept of 'time'. Non-human animals likewise experience 'time' but are not able to know it without a short-term process.

"'The only way to scratch a cognitive itch is to repeat the offending melody in our minds.'" [ref] Says Professor James Kellaris.


Now that makes a lot of sense doesn't it?


No it does not.


But there is a choice: use short-term processing for a nice way-station and wave at the long-term results as they pass through, including uncontrollable repeating songs, depression, eating disorders, anger, hatred, ignorance, and every other mental condition psychiatry and Dr. Phil pretend to know anything at all about, or use short-term processing to evaluate them BEFORE sending them into long-term memory.

Just the process of evaluating long-term processing assumptions puts a wonderful stop to stupid statements: "'I compiled a top 10 list of earworms in the US, but the number one item is simply the category 'other' - which means that any tune is prone to become an earworm,'" Kellaris said. Care to evaluate that statement?

The list is of a top 10, where the biggest category is 'other'. So either Kellaris listed the other nine out of his own head or he somehow managed to ignore that there IS NO TOP 10 if OTHER is supreme. All the rest are insignificant.


When a song gets 'stuck' in your head, don't try to stop hearing it, you only recall it in order to know what to try to stop hearing. STOP LISTENING TO IT. You do that by engaging your short-term process in a completely different function using THE SAME SENSE PATHWAYS.

Songs enter the ears and are processed by the aural pathways of the brain. If you are an aural thinker, it is rather easy to engage short-term memory for more than a way-station by concentrating on a mathematical problem. If you are a visual thinking person, simply cross your eyes and concentrate on the out of synch visual input. At first the song may stick around a bit, but not for long. If you are unable to do either method, don't blame the messenger. Read more about how the brain works, learn what the functions are, start using your own brain instead of blaming others for your inability to understand.

"And he added that there was also no guaranteed way of ever getting the song off the brain." [ref]

Yes, there is. But it takes using what is the literal majority of your human brain for more than a road, where memories pass through without so much as a question of why.

For more information on how aural and visual thinking works, how the brain processes information, how memory works and the way to solve mental problems, to stop spending money on useless psychiatric voodoo and do away with Dr. Phil's celebrity, read: "The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing" at It is a free book with quite a few additional supporting papers and presentations at the site to help you understand how you think and why most people simply do not do very much of it, especially neuroscientists.

From the "ohrwurm", a word meaning 'earworm' in German, used as a slang term to denote a troublesome and repetitive problem, good ol', American marketing minded, funding focused scientists, have created a new 'brand' for neuroscience.

A medical doctor will tell you not to scratch an 'itch'. It leads to infection. It works the same way in your brain. If you decide to repeat a song in your head, whether it is by finding yourself humming it (long-term in control of your brain, which means the past is controlling your 'now') or having it jump in after someone mentions the title or the product: you have a solution. It is already in your head. It is your short-term process, the thing that makes you human. Use it and you might find how interesting it is to be human.

Memory Takes Roller Coaster Ride on Emotion

Yet another misguided assumption is made from the study of brain function. So misguided in fact, that the assumption is completely backwards.

The article is entitled: REF: "Emotion Takes Memory on Roller Coaster Ride: A study finds the big event is recalled sharply, but the mind is fuzzy about things leading up to it." Published by HealthCentral.Com from HealthDayNews, by Steven Reinberg on Oct. 28, 2003.

University College London's Ray Dolan, the lead researcher in the study announced in the article stated: "If an emotional event happens, you remember it better. However, this comes at a cost: The cost is that the things that precede the emotional event tend to be remembered much worse." [ref]

It is a typical mistake of neuroscience to put the outcome before the cause.

Observation provides visual and oft' times physical evidence of emotions, while memory is only something inside the head, so it is logical those who fail to ask why they observe something will stop at the observation, and start deducing things into absurdity.

Most all of mainstream neuroscience is rooted in essentialism. If a researcher desires to research something, it is almost always the thing they observe, not the cause of it.

But wait, you say: how can one determine the cause of something without first investigating what was caused?

By engaging the thing, which is being studied. Think!


"Dolan and his colleagues asked 10 volunteers to study a list of nouns. Each list contained emotionally aversive words such as "murder" or "scream." The subjects were then asked to recall the words on the list." [ref]

No the list did not contain emotionally aversive anything. It contained words. Words can be whatever the person deems them to be, especially if they are aware of being in a test using words. The researchers received the results the volunteers thought the researchers were seeking.

"The researchers found the volunteers remembered the emotionally charged words much better than the other words. In addition, they had significant trouble remembering the words that came immediately before the emotionally charged words." [ref]

No they did not. The volunteers remembered the words that had meaning to them. The words that held no or little meaning to them were not recalled.

What the study did was test memorization without telling the volunteers they were being test for memorization.

Of course the words that evoked a 'bad' thing would be recalled easier.

The researchers are under the assumption that emotions are a cause of their own and memory is a result of emotions. That is completely backwards.

Emotions are a result of memory, being compared to input stimuli. The are considered 'emotions' as the short-term process of the human brain does not have direct control over that comparison process. When the outcome is either an unexpected physical reaction or uneasy mental reaction, the short-term process is left without a reason for the reaction. That causes the reaction to be called an 'emotion'.

"They also found that among women the effect of emotion-induced amnesia was twice as large as compared with men, according to their report in this week's issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences." [ref]

There is no such thing as 'emotion-induced amnesia'. Claiming there to be such a thing simply shows the researchers have deemed the outcome of their test to be valid when the test itself is invalid.

Of course the women reacted more to disturbing words than the men did. In most cases, female long-term memory is visually based where the word's invoked images of the meaning of the word in relation to the perception of the word's meaning's already in the long-term memory of the female causes the reaction, observed as an emotion.

"To determine the neurological basis for this finding, Dolan's team repeated the test with 24 subjects who were given either propranolol, a beta blocker drug that can also reduce anxiety, or a placebo." [ref]

"Among the subjects who received the drug and the subject with the damaged amygdala, there was no improvement in the memory of the emotionally charged words and no emotional amnesia for the words that came directly before. This indicates that both adrenergic hormones and the amygdala influence emotion-induced amnesia." [ref]


There is no indication in the report referenced as to how many subjects received the placebo or what the differences were between placebo and non-placebo subjects. Whatever the placebo effect was in the test must be applied to the non-placebo group as well, as neither knew they had a placebo.

Memory of greater significance carries a higher degree of amplitude for neuron processing in memory comparison to input stimuli. By providing a beta-blocker the researchers reduced the level of the higher amplitude artificially rendering the test results moot.

"Furthering their research, Dolan's team continues to study how mechanisms of memory can be disrupted. Their goal, Dolan says, is to determine how better memories are created." [ref]

Which is a fascinating concept since they have not one clue what it is they are studying and not one clue what memory is, how it works or what it results in.

"'The findings of this study are important because they suggest that the brain mechanisms that we think are important for enhanced memory associated with emotional events are also involved in memory impairment for emotional events,' says Dr. Larry Cahill, an assistant professor of neurobiology at the University of California at Irvine and author of an accompanying commentary." [ref]

Read that statement again: "the brain mechanisms that we think are important for enhanced memory associated with emotional events are also involved in memory impairment for emotional events": perhaps because memory is the cause of emotions?

The study has emotions, the result of long-term memory output before conscious short-term memory is able to regulate the output, attributed to causing memory. The entire study is backwards and absurd.

"'Right now it is too soon to tell if these findings will have any clinical implications, but they may lead to a better understanding of how emotion affects the mechanisms of memory,' he says." [ref]

Dr. Cahill: It is the other way around. Memory affects emotions, as emotions are the result of long-term memory.


Reality vs. Perception

Perception is what the brain does. It perceives what it is given and compares it to what it has previously perceived. Over time, the notion that perception is reality emerges while the argument of self-created reality is easily marked.

It is an important topic to discuss, but to do so from another perception's reality would be a waste of time. No one will accept what another perception tells him or her. On the surface it would seem logical that what you see is what you get, but reality does not care what you see, or what you get from it. Only a perceiver could care and only a perceiver could argue what is gotten from what is seen.

The problem with perception is perspective. Perception requires imposing the perspective of the observer upon the thing being perceived. In some way, that is supposed to impart qualities and deductive reality upon the thing being perceived. How could a thing being perceived have multiple perceptions?

Essentialism is the result of shared perception. Essentialism is "a philosophical theory ascribing ultimate reality to essence embodied in a thing perceptible to the senses". (m-w) It is also the reason for racism, bigotry and modern science.

It is easy to become confined within one's mind. It is easy to convince oneself that what one sees is what reality is, especially when defending a position of deduction based on what one sees. It is the 'easy' that defies logic of thought.

In a previous piece, a totally logical fact was presented in an explanation of perception: "Look at a red car. Notice to you, its color is red. But color is a perception of your brain, based in the wavelengths and amplitudes of the visible spectrum provided to the input receptors of your brain's visual pathways. Your eyes are not seeing. You are seeing, through your eyes. But what are you seeing? Light that is not absorbed by the item you are looking at is reflected. Your eyes are seeing the reflected light, sending it to your brain, where you perceive it to be real. But if the item is rejecting a wavelength and thereby reflecting it, then the item is not the color of the reflected wavelength, but rather the color of the absorbed, wavelength. That red car is red to you, because it reflected every color it, is not." {Awareness}

The objection to that logic is this: "You talk about the 'real color of something,' but I think that's a flawed concept. Or, rather, I think the concept of reality, as an absolute truth is a flawed concept. Everyone has their own reality. Whilst individual realities might have a lot of similarities, equally they are capable of enormous divergence and diversity." {email}

The term 'reality' as used in the objection is subjective. Reality means: "something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily." {m-w}

Essentialism requires independence of reality, while likewise requiring dependence on senses to perceive, but it does not stop there.

We are speaking of two things while using the same term. Reality is what is presented to the senses. Perception is what arises from the reception of reality and the comparison to previous received reality.

"Almost everyone would say the car is red. What or whom decides what the car is? Is the car the colors it absorbs or is it, as the vast majority of people intuit, the color it rejects. The car does not project the color it absorbs. It absorbs the color it absorbs and reflects the color it rejects. It does not project anything. It is passive. The lamp projects. The car bodywork does not." {email}

Everyone would say the car is red. That is the wavelength of light the car is reflecting. No one would decide the color of the car. Everyone would say the color of the car is the color it rejects. Everyone would be wrong.

Reason: Everyone has a brain that accepts input from sensors and compares that input to previous input, which itself was previously compared to input. The color 'red' and the symbols used to impart the word 'red' are part of that previous compared input. No amplitude of single new knowledge will cause the symbol to give up its reference. It is not possible. But it is possible to contemplate the reality of what is known perception, independent of the perception:

The larger the amplitude of a new perception, the larger the defensive response is. Politicians often ignore this issue when proclaiming positions and alienate those they hope to convert. Despots often do not ignore the issue when proclaiming positions, as they do so small and in little chunks so as to train the small response to let go of its rejection. As long as essentialism is used in the authoritarian's rhetoric a common enemy will emerge to replace the small objections to perception and each individual person's perception of reality will have changed without their awareness. It is how Hitler took over Germany using the Jews as the common enemy.

Perception can be changed without a single awareness of the perception being changed. Reality cannot be changed. If it could, there could be no perception of it to ever remain stable.

If everyone were to observe the 'red' car at the same time and observe it over a period of hours, while the light source was slowly changed from near 'white' (all wavelengths) to a different shade of white; (perhaps red or perhaps blue), only those who had managed to remove themselves from observing the continuous slow change could see a difference. Perception would indeed become reality, and it would change as the light source changed: the same process of indoctrination in politics.

Put a frog into a vat of hot water and it will indeed jump out. Put a frog into a cool vat of water and slowly increase the temperature and you will have frog legs for dinner. The frog, a reactionary creature, will not react to slow changes, it will adapt: and it will perish by adapting. Adaptation is compliance.


Compliance is:


In reality, the process that gives rise to the ability to perceive does not change. The process is reality, not what is perceived from it.

The car's color does not change, only the light applied to it changed. The process of the car's rejection of the color it is not, does not change, only the light presented to it changed. The color the car really is does not change, only the light presented to it has changed. Reality does not change to fit perception, so why is it that many people attempt to make it so?


It always has been. So it continues to be.


What we see is what we get, unless we question what it is we see.

When we question what we see, we find the system that permits us to see what we see and to question it, or to accept it for what we see and impose what we see on what allows us to see. The latter has always been the process.

Aristotle observed and deduced and brought forth nothing but what was observed. Since Aristotle we have managed to contemplate why, and have formulated theories of what causes the observable. The only problem with that has been it has stopped there. What is seen is still dominate over what is actually being seen.


So what about the tree?


If a tree falls in a forest and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound? Of course not, if one believes that 'sound' is dependent upon hearing. Of course, if one believes that hearing is dependent upon sound.

Essentialism would dictate that sound does not exist until it is heard. Therefore, sound cannot exist, as it is not heard at the source of the 'sound' but at the reception location, which would then mean that the sound was not created by the thing making the sound, but by the ear hearing the sound. And we let these people loose in public?

The senses: sense. They do not create what is sensed unless there is something seriously wrong.

Ancient peoples looked up into the sky and deduced that what moves in the same essential pattern each time and comes 'up' from the ground and goes 'down' under the ground (remember, the earth was flat at the time and only became round when someone actually saw the roundness?) does so, because that is how it works.

Later on, not so ancient peoples found out: that was not how it works. But it took a long time for people to give up their grasp of what they could see.

Now, many years later the same process is being used in science all over again. Actually, it never stopped. The only thing that has changed is the tool used to do the observation. The deductive process remains the same.

Today, we have scientists who have staked their careers and income sources on propagating the myth that we think in the symbols we came up with to share our thoughts.

Today, we have scientists who have staked their careers and income sources on propagating the myth that we think in the same lack of logic we created to carry out our calculations.

Put the two camps together and we won't hear the sound until we attend the conference, so the conference could never have taken place.

The same lack of logic was applied to the stars. Ancient peoples found connect-the-dots to be a nice form of explaining everything. They created connect-the-dot images, which took on powers of their own, and for centuries (including this one) people believed those stars had meaning. A whole culture of 'believers' was created to judge what the stars held for people.

Since then we have found that connect-the-dots is a nice child's game and a silly way to perform science. But we have replaced connect-the-dots with maps.

We map the way to grandma's house, so why can't we map the way the brain works?

At first we thought the human brain's two big parts were responsible for left and right brain thinking. Then we found that was not quite accurate. Yet many still hold on to the notion that one side is for one thing and the other side is for another thing.

Location, location, location works well in real estate and horrible for science.

Millions upon millions of dollars are being spent just this year to map the human brain. As if knowing where a car travels has anything at all to do with how it manages to get there.

The reason for this insistence upon show-and-tell is the cyclical reemergence of visually dominant societies.

Some people think by seeing pictures. Other people think by hearing words. Some people do both, to one degree or another.

When aural (the process that functions the hearing sense) is dominant, concepts and logical fit are important. Substance is important. Amplitude is paramount. Quality matters.


When visual (the process that functions the seeing sense) is dominant: style and expression are important. Substance is in the way. Frequency is paramount. Quantity matters.

Societies have changed over the centuries from one dominant sense to the other. When visual is dominant, art and creativity abound in experimentation and adaptation to current trends. When aural is dominant, music and creativity abound in invention and creation of future trends.

Visual thinkers dominate today's science. Instead of seeking system and function, method and process, today's science seeks symbol and satisfaction, results and how to make those results and totally ignores the potential of amplitude.

Causes must be smaller instead of larger, ignoring the process of decay.

Results must be clones of their cause, which allows the belief that results are their own cause. Hence, the tree will forever fall and never make a sound, unless a conscious human is somewhere within the reach of the sound waves, which happened long before they are heard, and is able to somehow, magically interpret the tree to not exist, let alone, never have fallen unless that arrogant ignorant heard it.

Of course, if the tree fell in space (give it a break, its an analogy) there would be no medium to disturb, so therefore no sound would be made and not even the arrogant human could impose hearing such a sound on a sound wave that did not exist.

Today's American culture is becoming visual. Fads, that once were counter-culture only, mostly made of children who determined their right of passage before having earned it, are becoming mainstream. Marketing has determined that what the children want is what will be served to them to get them to buy things they have no need for.

The result has meant the culture is becoming juvenile.

Imagine how impossible it would be to advance as a culture, if every letter written, was assumed to have been written, by the reader.

That is exactly what essentialism requires. The senses are paramount, even though the senses do not do anything but sense.

The brain 'sees', not your eyes. You do not 'look through' your eyes as you have not done so. If you are like most humans you simply, see. Try looking through your eyes, placing yourself as the one doing the seeing and see what happens in your life.

The brain 'hears', not your ears. You do not 'hear through' your ears as you have not done so. If you are like most humans you simply, hear. Try hearing what you say yourself, through your ears. Listen to yourself when you talk and place yourself as both the person making the sound and the person hearing the sound and you'll hear what others hear of you, as well as control not only how but what you say.

To do otherwise, to simply hear or see, without awareness of either, is to waste the strongest and highest potential of your human brain.


HYPNOSIS: What It is, How It Works

Is Hypnosis an altered state of consciousness? Sort of.

Since the practice of hypnosis goes back a long time in history, one must separate the mystical illusion from the physical confusion.

Fact: everything the body does is either regulated or determined by the brain.

Fact: everything the brain does can be adjusted by the use of the brain.

Fact: few scientists will believe either fact. The current culprit of causality is genetics. Of course, if the employee motivation industry knew what science knows and treated their lectures like science treats genetics, motivational sessions would be quite boring indeed. After all, if the reason a whole department has low productivity is the result of a defective blueprint for the room they work in, what good is the manager of the department? DNA determines the structure, the connectivity, the shape and size. The system is regulated in potential by the structure, but is not determined by it.

If science keeps wondering at the things they see, it should not take too long to excuse every condition known to man as without personal cause.

Hypnosis is considered a mystery. Oft' times mysteries are so enticing to retain, that the statement of impending impossibility of understanding, is a logical excuse to retain the mystery.


Enough already.


Hypnosis works by using the weakness of short-term processing memory to ignore itself. It is a pretty easy task to accomplish and results in a lack of awareness (in degree, depending upon the success of reduction.)

Many people go through life without engaging short-term process memory for more than its default minimum: consciousness, with non-zero awareness.

According to The Harvard Mental Health Letter, up to 20 percent of the population fall for hypnosis easily. Those people are not special: they are sadly, not using short-term process for anything more than the minimum.

10 percent of the population is not able to be hypnotized at all. 10 percent of the population is in control of their own brains with more awareness in short-term process memory.

Short-term process memory has a duration of seven seconds. Its purpose is to provide a loop of internally retained data that is the 'mind' of the human. Being just seven seconds long, setting up a repetitive process, (visually repetitive for visual short-term thinkers, and aurally repetitive for aurally short-term thinkers), will turn that loop of awareness into a redundancy, effectively making it -0-.

Once reduced to its minimum condition, pretty much anything entered into the system will pass by awareness and enter long-term memory without objection. A talented hypnotist can find enough connecting long-term memories to make the injected suggestion take hold and if enough of it does, it can replace the connected memories: until the cause of those memories resurfaces, which has nothing to do with the suggestions.

Being able to be hypnotized is a good indicator of how much short-term processing your brain is currently using. If you can be hypnotized, you are probably suffering from the conditions hypnosis can address. Whether it can help is determined by how fast your long-term memory is actually running. The faster it runs, the less a suggestion will match a memory. Intelligence in long-term is based in more resolution and faster speed. Do the math.

But there is an easier way to find out if your short-term process is too low.

Just hold up the hand you write with. Start moving it back and forth as fast as you can.

Then hold up the other hand and move it slowly.

If you can keep both going: writing hand fast and other hand slow, hypnosis is a waste of time for you.

If you cannot do both at the same time, at different speeds, hypnosis is possible. The more you cannot keep them moving at different speeds, the more hypnosis is possible.

You can use that exercise to eliminate the need for hypnosis as well.

Practice it. Work on having both hands operating independently and operating at different speeds.

You will be duplicating the process your brain actually works in.

Your writing hand is controlled by short-term process. The other hand is controlled by long-term process.


By having both operate together, at different speeds you are taking control of your brain with dominant short-term processing: what is intended to be done, with two processing levels of a brain.

Wasting your time and money on mystical elusions, belief systems and 'higher levels of consciousness' is just that: a waste of time and money. If you know how your brain works, you can take control over it, instead of it controlling you.

A brain that controls you (you, are your short-term aware process) results in everything from depression to eating disorders and nothing more than income for people who are trained in treating what they do not understand.

If you have a child, start them practicing the exercise early in life and you will be proud of what they do with their life.

Is Hypnosis an altered state of consciousness?

If it works, if the patient is able to be hypnotized, they are already consciously altered, or they could not be hypnotized.


The Dangers of Memory In Control

"Matthew Walker, Ph.D., instructor of psychiatry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School" is a victim of his own memory.

Memory is a collective term used by psychiatry to denote a thing or event and is considered to be a whole, as if the brain was a repository of the media a brain created.

Walker, in the new study: "To initiate a memory is almost like creating a word processing file on a computer. Once the file has been created, if you don't hit the 'save' button before shutting off the computer it will be lost. Our new research helps explain the process in our brains that enable us to first create the memories and then to stabilize and 'save' the memories we've created."

Walker and his colleagues in the study are obviously children of the computer age. The study, financed in a complete waste of taxpayer money by the "National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Mental Health" begins with the premise that brain memory is identical to computer memory; that brain processing is identical to computer processing; and the same processes that control the child, also control the parent.

Brains developed computing using the most simple, observable logic method possible, for early 20th century science. To this day, the new crop of computer trained scientists are now falling victim to the same malady their predecessors fell victim to; they are comparing what they are studying to what they find already available to compare it with: the thing that controls their attention.


It is impossible to compare the process of a brain to the process of a computer unless it is to show the differences.

A brain, without knowledge from which to base its assumptions will, by default, use the knowledge most prevalent in memory to make the assumptions. That knowledge of today's scientist is the computer.

Computers were created by brains, not as clones of brains, but as output of brains using the previous knowledge available to those brains, which makes the study by Walker and colleagues an absolute farce.

The study identifies three stages of a memory. For the study, a memory is a thing, similar to a word: a representation of a complete thought.

"We first discovered that in order for a memory to be stabilized - and therefore become less vulnerable to competing information - it requires somewhere in the region of six waking hours. So, this is when your brain is hitting the 'save' key and putting the file on the 'hard drive,' but instead of being saved in a matter of seconds like your computer file, a memory needs several hours to be saved."

Absurd. Your brain has no 'save' key. Your brain's memory is not placed on a 'hard drive'. Your memory is a collection of thousands of individual perspective memories from each input receptor accepting the input. A memory in your brain is a memory the moment it enters the brain. It does not take any time at all to develop into a usable memory. It takes repetition to develop into an easier to recall memory.

"From there, the researchers went on to discover that the second stage of memory processing occurs during sleep - and that it is 'absolutely dependent on sleep in order to occur,' according to Walker."

Absurd. Sleep is the process of memory processing without the benefit of external relevance. It means memories that are not within the same time frame, are not of the same whole event, are mixed in long-term memory and result in increases of amplitudes. Memories are amplitudes of pulsed frequencies. Sleep does not enhance memory. It confuses it. Luckily, the process of sleep itself, in humans, requires short-term memory to be reduced low enough to cause the subject to not be aware of sleep while sleeping.

"'In keeping with the computer file analogy,' says Walker, 'this stage of memory would be comparable to an editor coming in and opening a stable but messy file, and reorganizing it, refining it and tightening it up.'"

Absurd. If memory was enhanced and organized and refined in sleep, we would all wake up with clear understanding of the previous day's events. Instead, we wake up knowing the previous day's events are indeed past and we concentrate on the weirdness of the memories we experienced during the wake-up period when short-term memory begins to turn back on.

"The final stage of memory identified by Walker and his colleagues is the 'recall phase,' which allows a previously stabilized memory to be modified. 'What we found was that after the memory had been stabilized [after several waking hours] and enhanced [after a night's sleep] it once again became pliable so that it could be altered in the context of new ongoing experiences.' In other words, although an individual may have learned to play a piano scale, then enhanced the skill after a night of sleep, by way of this third modifying stage of memory he could continue to tweak and refine this new skill."

Absurd. There are no 'stages' in memory. Memory is not like a computer. Memory helped create the computer, not the other way around. Memory is not 'pliable'. Memory is a collection of millions of memory wavelets that together make up a single comprehensible and recallable 'thing' that short-term processing views as a single event. Start to learn how to play the piano today, sleep on it and try how much enhancement sleep has given to the new task. Sleep is rest without the benefit of external relevance to 'now'. You will not play the piano better. You will, in fact, have to almost start all over again to learn what you had learned the day before. When you start learning to play the piano again, the new memories compared to the previous memories create new memories with partial recognition. Repetition alone will enhance your piano playing ability.

The press release finishes with a barbaric and ancient error: "This last stage may have important clinical implications in the treatment of patients with psychological disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), says Walker. 'In PTSD, individuals have specific memories with specific associations attached to them, which are negative, and thereby causing the disorder,' he explains. 'What we think behavioral and cognitive therapies do by having patients replay those memories and talk about them is that exact third memory stage. Over time, there may be the chance for these patients to redefine their memories and make them less traumatic.'"




Psychiatry lives in the realm of the past and assumes recalling the past is the way to beat it. Recalling the past is what causes depression, disorders and maladies of mental condition. Psychiatry is no more advanced today than it was when learned doctors were subjecting patients to torture chambers. It has only moved from physical abuse to mental abuse.

Once again, we find the current state of mental science to be barbaric, idiotic and self-consuming. Walker and colleagues are victims of the very thing they study. Unless and until this new crop of barbaric scientists lets go of their past, no matter how technologically intriguing it may be, the state of mental health will continue to reside in the form of stupidity and ignorance offering stupid and ignorant solutions to problems that are not solved due to stupidity and ignorance.


What You See, Is Not What Causes, What You See: Observational Illusion in 'Antidepressants Grow New Brain Cells'

"Antidepressants may help stimulate the growth of new brain cells, U.S.-based scientists said on Thursday in releasing research that may lead to the development of better drugs to fight depression." Not in the least bit.

Major depression is considered the number one cause of disability around the world according to the National Institute of Mental Health.

Research into the causes of depression have concentrated on neuron growth as evidenced by the recent publication in the journal Science by a group of US based scientists "Antidepressants Grow New Brain Cells ".

Rene' Hen, Ph.D., Associate Professor of the Neurobiology of Behavior and Learning at Columbia University headed the most recent study with colleagues at Yale University and in France.

According to the Reuters story: "Research on rats shows that two different classes of antidepressants can help brain cells regenerate -- and not in areas normally thought of as being involved in depression."

Both tricyclic: sold as amitriptyline, amoxapine and other brands, and fluoxetine: sold under the brand-name Prozac by Eli Lilly and Co., were used in the experiments: drugs that are believed to 'restore' serotonin and norepinephrine levels to normal, over time.

Observationally, these drugs increase the levels of chemicals in the brain (serotonin and norepinephrine). Those chemical are synapse transmitters, carriers of neuron performed memory function permitting one-way transmission, not the function within the neuron. Increasing transmitters artifically, with no reference to their use in brain function, is like the post office rewriting your letter to make it more profound, even though you had no such meaning when you wrote it.

"This is an important new insight into how antidepressants work," Dr. Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health, said in a statement.


No it is not.


It is an important new insight into what antidepressants result in. Not in how they work. And the outcome will result in: "New antidepressants may be developed to target this process directly", according to Hen, "There is a push already in the pharmaceutical industry to find such compounds."


That is exactly what should NOT be done.


From the Reuters story "'If antidepressants work by stimulating the production of new neurons, there's a built-in delay,' said Hen. The stem cells that give rise to new cells need time to divide, to differentiate into neurons, move to their new homes and link up with other neurons."

"Besides finding drugs that target this process, the other basic research challenge for me is to find out what the function of these new neurons is," Hen said.

How could that be? Neuroscience cannot come to agreement on the function of a neuron at all, what difference will a little more speculation have on brain science?

Further illusion!: compounded upon existing illusion, just as long as they can see it in a picture.

In chapter eleven "Intelligence: What It Is, How It Works" of "The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing", author Lee Kent Hempfling explains:

"Starting at the combination with input, in reactive brains, (your long-term process as well) memory is sent in pulses of amplitude from one neuron to the next in that pathway's route.

Neurons accept the chemical stimulus through the one-way requirement of a synapse, where it emerges as excitation of the lattice of the neuron, to 'charge it', and is met by a pulse from another pathway stemming from the biological clock that combines the amplitude of the lattice with the amplitude of the clock pulse, resulting in an overload of amplitude for the lattice and the subsequent expulsion or 'firing'.

That process continues 'on down the line' as if it were a string with many knots and a drunk gnat skipping from one to the next and bouncing off the knot, waving in time with it.

Eventually, the gnat is so worn out that it doesn't 'charge' the wave of the string enough to be discharged and it is absorbed.

That would be the end of the line of a string of memory. The more knowledge the more use, the more thinking, the stronger the gnat is, the deeper it goes, the more neurons its needs to continue."

Artificially stimulate the synapse transmission and the result is, artificially increased neuron processes.


Artificially increased neuron processes, result in artificially increased synapse transmission and result in the need somewhere for the output of the last neuron in the pathway to go: so another neuron is created to accept the pulsed value.

If that was not an artificial process, one that was induced through extra brain function, a new 'norm' would develop in that pathway. Artificially causing such result means dependency on the drug responsible for it.

Coming off of the responsible drug reduces the brain's neuron processes to its own normal level but is comparing that normal level to the artificially high neuron process level of memory created during the drug induced period. It results in withdrawals, does NOT solve the depression and only feeds the psychiatrists and drug companies.

It does not matter what the clinical trial protocols were for this study. What does matter is the deductive reasoning of its results. That reasoning is based in the belief system of neuroscience that the hardware (wetware) of the brain and its chemical processes are all there is to brain function.

In chapter eight, "Facing Your Brain - Taking Control: Overcoming Depression, Withdrawal & Imbalance", of "The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing", Hempfling continues:

"Drugs work on synapses, which are chemical translators of wave amplitudes by either raising (amplifying) or lowering (resisting) the translated transmission."


"...Since the architecture is made biologically, the form of component that would be able to stop a pathway's signal from reversing would be a biological function of accepting the wave amplitude from the previous neuron transmitted by the axon and converting it into a transmission of chemicals. Those chemicals cross the very close distance to the receptor of the neuron. The ones that make it are absorbed by the neuron, which transmits the translated value back into a wave amplitude.

It is exactly the same component (biologically constructed) as a diode...

Drugs to combat mental conditions usually work on those transmitters by changing the output (the transmitters) of the synapse's result based in timed and orchestrated clocking patterns to a representational value of the neuron receptor closer to the value the input receptor is giving for processing, artificially creating a memory that does not exist in reality.

The effect of drugs either amplifies or reduces return feedback amplitudes which result in lower short-term wave amplitudes, less relation to long-term amplitudes and a general feeling of being 'balanced' or otherwise 'normal'.

The cycle, once set up of decreasing return amplitudes being fed by decreased new amplitudes leads to a form of vegetation-like responses and the need for more drugs which leads to the need for more drugs.

There is something illogical in taking your brain to the 'repair' shop to be treated by a person who pays attention only to results and symptoms and has not one clue as to what causes it all.

By treating the result of a brain function instead of the process using that brain function drugs have given hope to the bothered and hell to pay for using them.


There is a better solution.


Synchronize, not anesthetize."


Such research publications as "Antidepressants Grow New Brain Cells", are good for the drug industry but very bad for patients who are given those drugs to combat a condition the science will not recognize as having a cause.

After all, if a psychiatric condition is identified with a biological cause it will become a medical condition and psychiatrists will no longer treat it.

Drugs are a nice way to keep psychiatry in business.

They are also barbaric treatments for misunderstood conditions and tend to change the focus of causes to the focus of results based in observed illusions.

It is good to see research results that substantiate the material in "The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing", but how much more pseudo-science will it take, how many more mistreated patients will it take to bring reason to the field?


The Real Drug Abuse Epidemic

With the recent revelation from a hero: Dr. David Franklin as reported by NBC's Dateline: drugs, and the abuse of them, by the makers of them, gives rise to the seriousness of 'direct to consumer', whether it is a physician consumer who prescribes, or a patient consumer who demands what they have last become aware of.

Posted in Dr. Joseph Mercola's web site NYT author Melody Petersen spoke in 2001 about the problems. [1]

Since then, the FDA has not raised one finger to curb the abuse of drugs. It is becoming increasingly clear that the war on drugs is targeting the wrong culprits.

"The 50 most-advertised prescription medicines contributed significantly last year to the increase in the nation's spending on drugs," wrote Peterson. [1]


That was four years ago.


"The report was prepared by the National Institute for Health Care Management, a nonprofit research foundation that was founded by the Blue Cross Blue Shield health insurance plans. Increases in the sales of the 50 drugs that were most heavily advertised to consumers accounted for almost half the $20.8 billion increase in drug spending last year, according to the study. The remainder of the spending increase came from 9,850 prescription medicines that companies did not advertise or advertised very little. The study attributed the spending increase to a boost in the number of prescriptions for the 50 drugs, and not from a rise in their price." [1]

"The Food and Drug Administration is now reviewing whether it should change rules it enacted in 1997 that made it easier for pharmaceutical companies to advertise their products on television." [1]

They are? Four years later, there are more drug commercials on US Television than ever before: back to back remedies for just about every conceivable ailment, some of which most people have never heard of.

Doctors are being approached with solutions instead of requests for diagnoses.

"Merck spent $160.8 million to promote Vioxx to consumers - more than PepsiCo spent to advertise Pepsi or Budweiser spent to advertise its beer, the study said. With the help of the advertising, Vioxx sales quadrupled to $1.5 billion last year from about $330 million in 1999." [1]

According to NBC correspondent John Hockenberry of Dateline: in 1996 Dr. David Franklin spent four months pretending to be an expert in many fields to gain trust of doctors and sell them the drugs, through training and company instruction. [2]

"It was my responsibility to leverage the trust that physicians had with pharmaceutical companies to corrupt the relationship between the physician and the patient," Dr. Franklin is quoted as saying in the report. [2]

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Sheehan, "one of the country's leading prosecutors of health care fraud" [2] provides a bothersome quote to Dateline:

"Every prescription drug is an inherently dangerous product with the potential to kill people as well as cure them. That's why we have very strict regulation, that's why we have rules about what marketing and promotion they can do. That's why we have rules about what they can produce and how they produce it." [2]

Where else in the world would a dangerous drug, not available to the consumer, without a physician's prescription, be advertised directly to the consumer? According to Peterson, "Only the United States and New Zealand permit advertising of prescription medicines to consumers." [1]

"Celebrex, another arthritis drug, which is locked in a marketing battle with Vioxx, was the seventh most widely promoted drug to consumers and was the fourth-largest contributor to drug sales growth last year. Other heavily advertised drugs contributing to the rise in drug sales are the cholesterol-lowering drugs, Lipitor, Zocor and Pravachol; as well as Paxil and Prozac, for depression; Claritin, Allegra and Zyrtec for allergies; and Prilosec for ulcers."

What does public advertising of drugs by drug companies have to do with anything?




1: They are advertising a drug that is ILLEGAL to come by through direct means. The consumer they advertise to cannot buy the product legally without a prescription.


2: They are pushing an illegal drug publicly, where children not only hear the advertisements but are suckered into the belief that such advertising is normal and good.

3: They both build a counter-culture. The street gang controls the market through its pushers, normally headed by organized crime. The pharmaceutical company controls the market through its doctors. Why are the drug companies not being prosecuted for organized crime?

Hockenberry says, "With his Ph.D. and the title of doctor, Franklin says he became part of a broad mission to deceive, even entice doctors to prescribe drugs to patients whether it was scientifically justified or not." A common pusher! [2]

"It was a matter of leveraging, corrupting, if you would, perverting the science, to greatly increase sales and profitability:" Franklin. [2]

Franklin worked for Parke-Davis, pushing Neurontin. Since 2000 Parke-Davis, a division of Warner-Lambert has belonged to Pfzier, "the biggest drug company in the world". [2]

It has been legal to advertise drugs, which would be illegal if the advertiser was not the manufacturer and only the pusher, since a 1997 change in FDA regulations. Not that challenges have not been attempted, only to face objection on constitutional grounds.

"Pfizer, Inc. has argued that open access to information is 'at the core of the First Amendment.' Pfizer lawyer Arnold Friede, speaking at a Friday forum hosted by the Federalist Society, lamented the 'enormous loss of agency credibility in the courts' and warned that the integrity of the FDA drug approval process is at stake." [3]

There is no provision in the Constitution that allows a product, illegal to be sold without prescription, to be marketed to consumers who cannot purchase the product without prescription.

On June 23, 2003 Senator John Edwards introduced a "TRUTH-IN-DRUG-ADVERTISING BILL", completely missing the point.

It is not necessary to force drug companies to be truthful in ads. It is necessary to take drug companies OUT of the direct to consumer business UNLESS THE FDA HAS APPROVED OVER THE COUNTER SALES.

Yes, over the counter drugs are able, and well should, be advertised, as they are able to be purchased by the consumer. But to allow drug companies to advertise drugs consumers are NOT ABLE TO PURCHASE without a physician's prescription GETS IN THE WAY OF THE DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP.

According to Edwards misdirected bill: "Drug companies spent $3 billion last year in direct-to-consumer advertising, more than three times what they spent in 1996. A recent Food and Drug Administration survey found that 70 percent of general practitioners said drug ads confuse patients about the relative risks and benefits of medicines. The FDA has cited many companies for deliberately misleading consumers. Last year, Pfizer falsely claimed that its Lipitor was safer than other cholesterol-lowering drugs. Earlier, the FDA told Procter & Gamble to stop ads that obscured information about an osteoporosis drug's risks with 'fast-paced, rapidly changing, distracting images.'" [4]

"Senator Edwards' amendment would require drug companies to provide information about the risks, side effects and proven effectiveness of drugs as prominently as they hype purported benefits." [4]

And do absolutely nothing about stopping the real drug epidemic.

"Cosponsored by Senator Tom Harkin, the legislation also would encourage innovative drug research by discouraging copycat drugs, new brand-name drugs that are nearly identical to existing ones. Copycat drugs make up 85 percent of new drugs approved by the FDA. While they allow additional drug companies to break into lucrative markets, they do little to reward actual innovation or advance options for patients. Senator Edwards' amendment would require a drug company to prove that its drug is better than drugs currently on the market. The FDA would approve new drugs only if they are more effective, safer, or easier to use than existing therapies." [4]

So called 'Copycat' drugs in any other industry would be called competition. Edwards apparently does not understand a free market system.

With 'over the counter' drugs as one product, and prescription drugs as another product, drug companies have managed to fool the FDA into ignoring the difference.

And here we are, four years after the review was started: more drug commercials than ever before, higher consumer spending on the top 50 advertised drugs, drugs being sold through deception to increase profits and the Food and Drug Administration playing the game.

Families USA has provided a chart,, showing the expenditures for advertising and research by drug companies.

In 2000, Merck and Co., Inc. spent 15% of net sales on advertising and 6% on research.

Pfizer Inc. spent 39% of net sales on advertising and 15% on research.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company spent 30% of net sales on advertising and 11% on research.


The rest are worse.


Drugs are developed to treat symptoms of most causes, as most causes are not understood, while the sale of those drugs is illegal without prescription.

All of that spending on advertising is for one purpose: to cause the consumer to insist the physician NOT DO THEIR JOB and instead, follow the advice of drug company slick and colorful advertisement.

A great deal of responsibility rests on the physicians who should stop prescribing any drug advertised in the marketplace directly to consumers. It is the only way they will protect their position as healer and retain any semblance of doctor-patient trust. Competition does exist for most advertised drugs in the 'copycat' alternatives Edwards seeks to destroy.


A great deal of responsibility rests with the drug companies who should direct their revenue to research and put money where it will do good, to result in new drugs and therapies instead of where it will only do good for the short term P&L statement.

But the majority of the responsibility for the fiasco of the real drug epidemic rests with the Food and Drug Administration.

Human beings, cast into long-term memory captivation by television programs, are readily looking for solutions to ailments and pains. Seeing a new ad claiming to eliminate their problem or even worse, identify a problem they did not know they had only serves to increase dependency on drugs as a solution to problems the drug makers do not understand.


Zoloft's (Pfizer) slogan says it all:


"When you know more about what's wrong, you can help make it right!" ® Pfizer

You're feeling 'down' and depressed so, "Side effects may include the following: upset stomach, trouble sleeping, diarrhea, dry mouth, sexual side effects, feeling sleepy or tired, tremor, indigestion, sweating, feeling agitated, and having less appetite."

Pfizer does not know what causes depression. Pfizer does not know how depression works in the brain. Pfizer does not know what Zoloft really does to a brain.

But it is just fine to advertise it like they do.


No it isn't.

Got Balls?

Sometimes it takes more steps than anticipated. Sometimes it takes less. Most times it happens the same way, every time.

How to solve mysteries, murder and mayhem:

Every act of crime is a whole. It is usually a 'hole' associated with the loss of something unjustly taken from you and manifests itself as a candidate for ruler of the long-term memory perspective.

It can turn into an obsession and only manage to slow the wheels of law to the speed of an amateur.

It can also solve a crime. Used as a means of investigation, the process of understanding the progression of events is easily understood when one considers a ball.

If at the moment, 'now', I have two balls, and that 'now' was not the first 'now' then, it could represent a prime potential to choose the phrase "I had two balls" as being recognizable.

Your memory compares events with: no knowledge or use of a concept of time. That concept is a result of the brain's process, not a cause of anything, other than fictional story telling.

Having memories of an event that matches the real event, as in a perfect image of the real event, is possible to do, but only if the very first, original event was indeed retained, and not the first match found in some remote way to it. Memory is exactly that, every memory is a memory of a memory. It is how memory works. Computer memory is just a memory. It has no relation to any other memory, unless a program combines them artificially.

Being aware of something is the same as the end equaling the beginning of that event, and just hanging there as a singularity. A loop formed. Recalling minute specific aspects of that new memory 'whole' is difficult unless it is quickly after the event took place, or consciously worked for its potential.

Relying on witnesses for investigation has been the mainstay of modern criminal investigation techniques. It is the concept of quantity. Quantity is the concept applied to any brute force solution to a problem.

The problem in criminal investigation is the established lack of connection between the investigator and the investigation places everything the investigator has in the way of solving the case.

The investigator knows the outcome and therefore the goal of any investigation: to solve a crime. So, investigators go about investigating by looking for the cause of the crime.

Talented investigators are self-aware aural thinking humans, of either gender, who have advanced short-term processing and use long-term for a library, and not a replay machine.

The natural outcome of such a brain configuration is the forward depth of the person's evaluative abilities: how far into the 'future' they can 'see' potential in. Actual events are impossible to 'see' as all aspects of each prior event is only a best logical test and not a definitive correct choice.

The same process causes stress, depression and anxiety in direct proportion to the degree self-aware is above, simply conscious.


Those so talented start the hunt for the cause at the most immediate event to 'now', even if it is after the crime took place.

Finding evidence after the crime took place, guarantees the path is started on the right trail, as anything not directly, and in two causative events responsible, knocks it out, as having been caused by the criminal event. If it remains it should be one of many post-mortem events further and further into time, after the criminal event. It refines investigative focus.

Once locking into a few logically connected, post-mortem events, whether they are blood splatter (about as least-post mortem as would be possible) to dislodged furniture and dents from impact, working backwards starts ahead of the crime, so the direction of the investigation has a head start and a focus by which to go back, step at a time, in a specific and methodical process to the root cause of the crime, and therefore, solve it.

The progression of events follows the same pattern in all progressions, in all things. It is rather simple.

Everything is made up of two previous things. There are no other possibilities. Everything is made of two parts. The difference in the frequency of the 'thing' and the frequency of any other 'thing' keeps them apart. Look for repetition, not pattern.

Uncover the pattern in the process, and it leads you to the whole: the one thing that started the entire chain of events to result in a crime.


By focusing on the process and not perceived patterns, the investigator removes any baggage they bring to the investigation process itself.

Changing perspective of the investigatory process from a deed to do, to a process to execute, changes everything in the way an investigator approaches any investigation.

Every event is made up of two causes. One cause will be larger in importance and the other smaller. The size of the smaller cause determines if it is a 'trigger', like a past problem, indicating there is deeper motivation involved. If it is a near equal importance in causing the event, the path to its solution requires one more depth of calculation.

At first, it will take quite a few depths to realize where a logical progression is made, not through a pattern, but by hard evidence. Then, it will take fewer depths, and finally it will take a minimum of depths.


It will become 'second-nature' to you.


Now, I have two balls.


Then, I had two balls.


What is the past tense, of the past tense?


What is the cause of that event?


What are the potential causes of that event?


Which of them are most important to the event's taking place at all.


Then, which type of event, or character in the collection of pathways appears the most?

By investigating in this fashion, one is measuring amplitude of pulsed events, set in motion by prior events, which are also mapped in amplitude where the pathway with the most amplitude will graphically lead right back to the original cause, the original culprit or the original accidental, non-involved event. In other words, the motive, the means, the opportunity and the interest. Only one such suspect can exist if the path is extended back enough, even past the crime itself, into the pasts of subjects showing up more than others during the investigatory process.

By investigating for the solution, one misses: the entire connected event structure; leading from the moment the crime was planned, to the underlying causes of that event.

Physical evidence is used to determine every step's amplitude or importance. Without amplitude a potential cause could only have been indirectly responsible. That would entail an entirely different chain of events effecting or starting a new chain of events, not related to it in responsibility other than having inadvertently been found in the same proximity.

Take the perspective of the observer. Not the thing being observed. You have no idea what that thing was caused by until you know what it is and if you attempt to guess, or hunch or conjure up a soothsayer's delusion, the truth will not be evident.


As the observer, you are not a part of what you are observing. If you were, you would not be aware of it, other than being aware of yourself as one person.

It is possible to take the perspective of the thing being observed and derive no logical solution to its cause. It is like looking into a mirror. Everything you do is backwards.

If 'luck' or externally non-related events, manage to drop hard evidence in your lap, and that kind of crime solving is normal and in many cases, is the majority of major crime solutions: a crime solved does more to set back criminal investigation than not solving one at all.


Investigators are people.


People get 'used' to things.


The things most 'taken for granted', those most normal of things, are those things where mistakes are made.


Genes' Sway over IQ May Vary With Class

In yet another ignorance based report, The Washington Post makes matters worse without so much as a single bit of knowledge.


HOW DARE a scientific study utter the word 'class' as a separation?


"Now a groundbreaking study of the interaction among genes, environment and IQ finds that the influence of genes on intelligence is dependent on class." [1]




It is completely DISGUSTING that such a study would DARE come to such a conclusion when the FACTS do NOT bear out ANY such assumption.

I recently told a man that I am not just anti-bigotry, the very concept MAKES ME SICK.


Here is why!


Differences in brain configuration are based in genetics. Differences in brain development are based in environment. It is a COMBINATION of a balance of NATURE and NUTURE.

Brain configuration, through genetics, is responsible for differences in dominant thinking types (aural or visual, in both long and short-term processing). The older the version of Homo-Sapien, the more visual the people will be. BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE. IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH INDIVIDUAL CONFIGURATION. It only APPEARS to be race as a people are lumped together for convenience sake, even by disgusting scientists WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER.




INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE are what genetics deals with. INDIVIDUAL GENES. Races are only created by observation to LUMP people into a NAME, a mark, a sign, a COMMON THREAD whereby elitists can sneer down their noses at people who are different than they are. It is a way to gain political power, NOTHING ELSE.




There are only people who share a common difference in skin tone and cultures and the power seeking politicians keep it that way to make sure they stay in power, by appealing to the emotions of those with visual thinking dominance. It keeps those people in BONDAGE, when reality IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

Visual thinking is NOT a handicap. It is the thing that creates art, the thing that creates beauty, the thing that defines beauty and form and the thing that: IF NOT USED AS DOMINANT IN SHORT-TERM PROCESSING, will cause the visual thinking person to become a victim to those who would exploit DIFFERENCES instead of work to bring people together in a country where the focus was intended to do just that.

"Back-to-school pop quiz: Why do poor children, and especially black poor children, score lower on average than their middle-class and white counterparts on IQ tests and other measures of cognitive performance?" [1]

They are ignored by politicians who can use their failures for self benefit. THERE IS NO OTHER REASON.

Poor children, regardless of 'race' score lower than middle class children, regardless of 'race' BECAUSE POLITICIANS FIND IT EXPEDIENT TO KEEP THEM THAT WAY. If they DID NOT, poor children would be treated like the children of parents who stand a monetary chance at supporting a politician.

By addressing issues and their details to the emotions of the poor, some politicians have managed to carve out a long and deep dependency for those people who need help the most.

That dependency is on SUPPORT FOR EMOTIONAL ISSUES, which can never result in SOLUTIONS TO REAL ISSUES.


The politicians know that.


"It is an old and politically sensitive question, and one that has long fueled claims of racism. As highlighted in the controversial 1994 book "The Bell Curve," studies have repeatedly found that people's genes -- and not their environment -- explain most of the differences in IQ among individuals. That has led a few scholars to advance the hotly disputed notion that minorities' lower scores are evidence of genetic inferiority." [1]

"Now a groundbreaking study of the interaction among genes, environment and IQ finds that the influence of genes on intelligence is dependent on class. Genes do explain the vast majority of IQ differences among children in wealthier families, the new work shows. But environmental factors -- not genetic deficits -- explain IQ differences among poor minorities. " [1]

AND THERE IS NOT ONE POTENTIAL GIVEN TO THE SINGLE COMMON THING BETWEEN BOTH CONDITIONS. The Brain. Genes control the configuration of the brain, its 'wiring'. Environment controls the use of the brain. Its nurturing.

"'How many books are in the home and how good the teacher is may be questions to consider for a middle-class child, but those questions are much more important when we're talking about children raised in abject poverty,' said lead researcher Eric Turkheimer, a psychologist at the University of Virginia."

Really? How many books in the home and how good the teachers are, ARE NOT CONSIDERED IN POVERTY? THAT IS WHAT HE SAID!

So the ASSUMPTION relies on social status. Social status is a result of the brain, and the results of many brains in close proximity or relation to a brain. It is what causes common interest or common backgrounds.


"Until recently, Turkheimer and others said, research had indicated that the "heritability" of IQ -- that is, the degree to which genes can explain the differences in IQ scores -- completely dominated environmental influences. That led some to call into question the value of programs such as Head Start, which are based on the assumption that by improving the childhood environment through extra attention, nutrition and care, a child's intellectual future could be improved." [1]

Turkheimer and 'others' do not even consider the IQ test itself in their assumptions. The Binet based IQ (which is what children are tested with) TESTS FOR LONG TERM KNOWLEDGE USE, NOT SHORT-TERM INTELLECT. IT IS A PROVEN FACT!

"But it turned out that virtually all those studies on the heritability of IQ had been done on middle-class and wealthy families. Only when Turkheimer tested that assumption in a population of poor and mostly black children did it become clear that, in fact, the influence of genes on IQ was significantly lower in conditions of poverty, where environmental deficits overwhelm genetic potential." [1]

NO IT DID NOT! It shows the importance of environment, which is what project "HEAD START" was ORIGINALLY designed to tackle.

The test results from this referenced study are so flawed the test results are A FARCE!

"'This paper shows how relevant social class is' to children's ability to reach their genetic potential, said Sandra Scarr, a professor emerita of psychology now living in Hawaii, who did seminal work in behavioral genetics at the University of Virginia." [1]

NO IT DOES NOT! It shows the level of importance the researchers placed on it. AND THAT IS ALL IT SHOWS!

But the study did have a basis in fact before the assumptions started rolling: "'Specifically, the heritability of IQ at the low end of the wealth spectrum was just 0.10 on a scale of zero to one, while it was 0.72 for families of high socioeconomic status. Conversely, the importance of environmental influences on IQ was four times stronger in the poorest families than in the higher status families.'" [1]

"'This says that above a certain level, where you have a wide array of opportunities, it doesn't get much better' by adding environmental enhancements, Scarr said. 'But below a certain level, additional opportunities can have big impacts.'" [1]

"The principle is straightforward and has long been recognized in plants and other simpler organisms. In one famous example, often repeated by evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin, two genetically identical seeds of corn, planted in very different soil conditions, will grow to very different heights." [1]

"Some social psychologists and behavior geneticists have hypothesized that the same must hold true for the relationships linking human genes, socioeconomic status and IQ. Like corn in depleted soil, the thinking goes, minorities and the poor (two categories with so much overlap that researchers find it difficult to tease apart their effects) perform worse not because of their genes but because they are raised in an environment lacking in resources and poisoned by racist attitudes." [1]

The problem here is the use of the assumption: 'genetically identical'.


And just because two people are twins (which is partially the source of the research study) does not mean they will have THE SAME PERSPECTIVE ON ALL EVENTS FROM WHICH TO NUTURE THEIR BRAINS THE SAME IN ALL EVENTS!

"Marcus Feldman, a population geneticist at Stanford University who has studied gene-environment interactions, said the next big challenge is to find out what it is about socioeconomic status -- a measure that includes not only income but also parental education and occupational status -- that contributes to IQ, so social programs can more effectively boost those factors." [1]

"'SES is a surrogate for something that deserves further study,' Feldman said. 'A paper like this reemphasizes the importance of psychology and educational psychology and draws us somewhat away from genetics and back into the importance of the social sciences for understanding IQ. This says to me, let's spend the money and find out what it is about SES that makes the difference.'" [1]


NO IT DOES NOT! It only shows the yardstick elitists use to judge others by.

The research is a joke. The study is a farce. The deductions are partly correct: Environment does effect test results, BUT, the test results are from a test that measures THE USE OF KNOWLEDGE, something impoverished children do not receive enough of, as it is more beneficial to politicians to retain the poor in their state in order to have someone to play to when they speak of emotions, or speak to, to control the poor and their votes, or their use as a target to attack political opponents with.

Socioeconomic Status is a creation of those who desire to BE ON TOP! Scientists know the feeling all too well. Tenure is what it is ALL ABOUT! CLASS!

The Washington Post is not at fault for publishing, verbatim, what a 'scientist' has to say. They are at fault for not using any intellect to evaluate the claims made.

This is the way scientists think: "Robert Plomin, a behavioral geneticist with the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College of London, who has been seeking genes linked specifically to intelligence, said the results do not undermine the importance of genes." [1]

"'In study after study, the evidence is overwhelming that there is a substantial genetic input to IQ,' Plomin said. 'This doesn't contradict that, but it leads to an interesting possibility that although it's true for the [middle- and upper-class] populations that have been studied . . . it's not going to mean much if you're in an impoverished environment.'" [1]


Even the opposing viewpoint offered by the paper's article invokes class as a means to justify their stupidity.


The Ultimate Brain Science is Not The Scientist. Redwood Neuroscience Institute Part One

Bill Softky (Redwood Neuroscience Institute) is right. "The most famous engineering brain models are 'Neural Networks' and 'Parallel Distributed Processing.' Unfortunately both have failed as engineering models and as brain models, because they make certain assumptions about what a brain should look like...Can software engineers hope to create a digital brain? Not before understanding how the brain works, and that's one of the biggest mysteries left in science. " [ref]

"Can software engineers hope to create a digital brain?" [ref] Bill Softky (Redwood Neuroscience Institute) is wrong.

"Bill Softky is a scientist at the Redwood Neuroscience Institute, founded by Jeff Hawkins. He has worked as a software architect, visualization designer, and educator." [ref]

He asks in The Register guest opinion piece: "Can software engineers hope to create a digital brain? Not before understanding how the brain works, and that's one of the biggest mysteries left in science. Brains are hugely intricate circuits of billions of elements. We each have one very close by, but can't open it up: it's the ultimate Black Box." [ref]

Software engineers are impressed with complexity. They see it in lines of code and commands. They see it as code. The brain has no code. It has a system.

Software engineers deal with code that results in a system, so they assume all systems therefore are code based, as if all cars are black.


Softky begins his opinion with a logical assumption: "A neuron is the brain's computational building block, its 'transistor'." [ref] But transistors to software engineers are digital switches or amplifiers. Not so in the brain.

One of the main goals of The Enticy Institute is to set spaghetti science straight, as explained by Softky: "There is an abundance of research on brains, discovering which areas light up when you solve certain problems, which chemicals are outside and inside neurons, what drugs change one's moods, all amounting to thousands of research papers, thousands of researchers." [ref]

That makes for thousands of different perspectives of what causes the results observed. It is amazing that so few researchers bother to analyze what is being observed as having its own perspective.

Each one attempts to impose their perspective on what is being studied. The result is all of those research papers and theories prove they were concocted to match assumptions. Today, the most overused assumption is the computer.

Scientists, including software engineers, like to make comparisons to things they are familiar with in order to explain something they are trying to understand. Oft' times that comparison winds up becoming the science while the thing being attempted to be understood is left in the dust.

"OK, so we know what a brain circuit looks like, in the same sense that we know what a CPU layout looks like. But for several reasons, we don't know how it works." [ref] Is just one example of imposing knowledge comfortable upon knowledge unknown. Science has pictures of neurons and accompanying cells connected and from that connection they deduce it must be like a CPU, which also has many connections. Not so. From such assumptions come three things:

"First, we don't know how a single neuron works. Sure, we know that in general a neuron produces more output pulses when it gets more inputs. But we don't know crucial details: depending on dozens of (mostly unknown) electrochemical properties, that neuron might be adding up its inputs, or multiplying them, or responding to averages, or responding to sudden changes. Or maybe doing one function at some times, on some of its branches, and other functions on other branches or at other times. For now, we can't measure brain neurons well enough to more than guess their input/output behavior." [ref]

The question not asked is what, actually, would a neuron be adding, multiplying, averaging or responding to?

Software engineers are like neuroscientists in that they observe and deduce. They do not seek causes based in logic not readily observable. They do not ask the uncommon questions.

"Second, we can't tell how the neurons are connected. Sure, neurons are connected to neighboring neurons. But that isn't very helpful. It's like saying that chips in a computer are connected to neighboring chips. It doesn't explain the specific circuitry. The best biologists can do is trace connections between handfuls of neurons at a time in a dead brain, and if they're lucky, they can even record the simultaneous outputs from a handful of neurons in a live brain. But all the interesting neural circuits contain thousands to millions of neurons, so measuring just a few is hopelessly inadequate, like trying to understand a CPU by measuring the connections between - or the voltages on - a few random transistors. " [ref]

The CPU analogy. The question not asked is what, actually, would be measured to be able to observe a system in action? The not so obvious questions are not asked. Such as: If the brain is electrical and does not short out in an fMRI (the current wonder toy of visually dominant neuroscientists) how could it be electrical? And: If every neuron firing seems to fall within the same voltage range what is not being measured that is variable enough to make a thought a thought?

"Third, we don't understand neurons' electrical code. We do know that neurons communicate by brief pulses, and that the pulses from any one neuron occur at unpredictable times. But is that unpredictability a random noise, like the crackle of static, or a richly-encoded signal, like the crackle of a modem? Must the recipient neurons average over many input pulses, or does each separate pulse carry some precise timing? "

Overwhelmingly common questions. So let us examine each one:

The "electrical code": Science observes actions and observes a seemingly non-patterned action and wonders how something so smart could be so random. Why not ask: If the thing is so smart how it could ever be random? If the thing comprehends the concept of time, and its system is resposible for there being a concept of time, how could such randomness account for the logic of order?

"Neurons communicate by brief pulses": Another one-sided common assumption: frequency without regard for amplitude. Science is based in frequency observations and ignores amplitude. Captivated by the frequency, science waits for the next 'pulse' and wonders how such an 'unpredictable' event could happen in such a logical device. The computer creeps in again with the analogy of a modem as if the brain has a stream of bits in a code that can be cracked like the Nazi code was cracked by the first worthwhile computer.

Only the output of a brain, steeped in a belief system of knowledge, supported by others who likewise believe, could ever assume that what the brain created could be anything at all like its own system.

It is logical to question whether "recipient neurons average over many input pulses, or does each separate pulse carry some precise timing?" [ref] But it is not logical to stop there.

Isn't the possibility that such a small space, even with its billons of components would be far more logical in system structure than anything it could develop since it can only develop what it already knows or is capable of asking? If the brain is like a computer how it could develop any logic greater than on and off?

The problem with neuroscience in general is the asking. But why labor that point?

"Finally, we don't know how brains learn. We're pretty sure that learning mostly involves the changes in connections between neurons, and those connections form and strengthen based on local voltages and chemicals. But it's devilishly hard even to record from two interconnected neurons, much less watch the connection change while knowing or controlling everything affecting it. And what about the factors, which create brand-new connections, or kill off old ones? Those circuit changes are even stronger, yet nearly impossible to measure." [ref]

What you see is what you get. Unless you wonder why you see it.

Synapses are right out there in the open and easily observed and the focus of billions of dollars of pharmaceutical research and serve only one purpose.

The synapse is a diode. It controls the direction of signal flow. Changing what it does artificially, is like making the cars and trucks bigger or smaller on a freeway, while they are traveling. Trucks deliver more goods than they picked up or cars arrive without the family inside. They still go the same direction but they are not the same thing.

Understanding how a neuron works requires understanding what a neuron works on. That requires asking the uncommon questions and seeking the amplitude of the easily observable frequency. The contents of anything are always inside. The frequency is only the vehicle. The amplitude is the content.

"So here's what we don't know about brain circuitry: we don't know what a single neuron does, what code they use, how they are connected, or how the connections change with learning. Without such knowledge, we can't reverse-engineering brains to deduce their function from their structure. " [ref]

The fact is, we do know what a single neuron does. We do know that neurons use absolutely no code at all. We know exactly how they are connected and we know that connections do not change with learning, they extend with knowledge and withdraw from lack of use. We also know neurons are shared by different sense processes and tend to make observable pattern hunting visual scientists dizzy with computer analogies. Reverse engineering is not necessary if one starts at the bottom and works up. Understand the system and how the system is put together falls into place.

"But what about 'forward engineering?' What about starting with the problem specification - what brains do - and saving the circuitry for later? Again, we are overwhelmed with detail. We know a lot about what specific neurons do when exposed to specific sensory inputs. For example, we know that some brain neurons respond to small contours of light, some to small bits of motion, some to certain shapes, some to colors, and some to faces, and there are dozens of similar responses in the visual system alone. Likewise in sound: some neurons respond to chirps, some to hisses, some to tones, some to sounds suddenly starting or stopping. There are thousands of research papers detailing more specific neuron functions than you could ever want to know." [ref]

It is not detail science is overwhelmed with. It is assumptions.

Of the list given in the previous quoted paragraph the reader will notice a similarity and a difference. Stimuli are in different spectrum ranges. The assumption is that the brain acts like the observation's comparison. Instead of questioning why different spectrum ranges are in different pathways of neurons, science assumes the things scientists do to be what the brain does: shapes, faces, other specific physical observational things. The brain results in those assumptions through the application of accepted knowledge, not by the system itself. If the system acted that way the output would only be that way.

There are thousands of research papers dealing (but not at all detailing) many guesses at what specific functions neurons do. Not one has attempted to venture the guess that perhaps if neurons did all of those things then there would be far too little resolution of each of them to combine to make any sense of any one of them. Neurons do one thing. The same thing. For each sense processed. There is only one system in the brain and it does not result in a clone of itself. It results in the ability to use knowledge to assume it is a clone of itself. Or it results in the intellect to not assume and to question why the uncommon questions are never asked.

Of course there are problems with the 'brain clone' assumptive process. It has achieved nothing remotely similar to what brains actually do. But Softky admits that.

"First, those hard-won neuronal recordings are not of brains doing what they usually do: interpreting and interacting with the real world. These recorded brains are instead exposed to highly artificial, constrained stimuli, chosen specifically to make a few neurons active enough to be measured. The dirty secret of neurophysiology is that under normal circumstances - viewing ordinary scenes, listening to ordinary sounds - neurons don't fire very much at all, and when the do fire, the cause is mysterious. That near-silence doesn't make interesting research papers, so scientists need to impose striking circumstances - like flashing high-contrast shapes at an animal in a darkened room - in order to make a neuron do anything measurable. If you want clear data, you have to give the animal some very weird inputs." [ref]

Bravo to Softky for at least letting the cat out of the bag. Too bad he stopped there. Instead of seeking to know why things are not observed that actually happen he manages to blame the manner of study (frequency) instead of the quality of study (amplitude).

"The second problem with all this neural data is that it comes from mature neurons which have already learned, somehow, to do whatever they do. But neurons aren't hard-wired: presumably, growing up with different inputs would have spawned different connections, teaching that neuron to produce a different response. In fact, it seems as if exposure to visual input makes a neuron learn a typical visual response, but exposure to auditory input makes it learn a typical hearing response. So we know something about what the responses are, but not why they got that way. " [ref]

Neurons do not learn anything. Neurons process amplitude. The system learns. Neurons are hardwired because they are connected, not programmed. The fact that connections change indicates something, but not the easily observable deduction that somehow the neuron needs to be taught. Neurons are components of a system. They are parts that are efficiently connected and shared so that one having an open pulse time is readily available to accept an output from a previous neuron matching that pulse time. The system controls whether a neuron gets a new connection or loses a connection. Not the neuron. If no pulse time is available for the output the glias get to work on a new one.

Neurons are like the rest of the brain's system in one specific way. Efficiency is paramount. Neurons do not learn a visual response. They process an input or a return amplitude. Neurons are not bigots either. The brain is efficient. That means a neuron that processes a visual pathway signal in one pulse will process an aural pathway signal in another process and perhaps a smell or a taste or even a pressure signal in another pulse. Those wonderful diode-acting synapses keep the system in order and stop the mixing of one sense with another sense's processing. Visually controlled scientists using the current toy of favor (fMRI) record the larger pulses and declare them to be location dependent and spend millions to create fictional maps of the brain that explain nothing but how silly the observational deduction is.

In fact, science knows nothing about the processes, which is the reason they know nothing of how they got that way.

Softky ends the first part of a two part guest opinion about the brain from a researcher representing "Redwood Neuroscience Institute, founded by Jeff Hawkins" with this:

"The huge missing piece is a theory of what a brain ought to do. Think of a human brain as a black box, having about a million inputs (sensory nerves) and half a million outputs (to muscles). You can think of the inputs as TV-pixel or mechanical sensor signals, and the outputs as driving little motors or pistons. At a minimum, the black box needs some formulae by which it can discover patterns in the inputs, and can create useful patterns of outputs."

Excuse us for laughing. A brain 'ought to do'? Perhaps think, remember, recall, deduce and in so few scientists: contemplate, project and create potential. If one thinks of the brain as a 'black box' one sets oneself up to believe anyone with enough bucks behind them to acquire enough press coverage and fool enough funding sources to become an 'expert' in something, must be right, even though they admit they have no clue how it really works.

"We know that input from the outside world has lots of patterns and regularity. For example, pixels are clumped into contours, moving objects, shadows. And output to the muscles need to be patterned - coordinated - like the specific contractions of walking, grasping, or throwing. But suppose you needed to program the black box to discover those input and output patterns on its own, from experience. What would you do? If you had a staff of a thousand programmers, what would you tell them to program?" [ref]

The problem is, the study is of the 'inside world'. The study is of the thing that perceives the 'outside world'. If it works anyway at all like what it perceives it could never create them. It could never analyze them. It could never be like the outside world.

What Softky has described is the direction of Artificial Intelligence, which is tantamount to the Manhattan Project team proclaiming the firecracker to be a nuclear device since it goes 'boom' too.

"Nobody knows the answer, but in the concluding part tomorrow, we'll look at some of the tricks that are probably involved." [ref]

Yes we do know the answer. And we cannot wait for tomorrow's look at what does not exist. There are no tricks in the brain. Bill Softky is a smart man. We look forward to the second part.

A Lab backwards, is one L short of a ball. Redwood Neuroscience Institute Part Two

Bill Softky has not surprised us and has not let us down. In the second part of his opinion piece for The Register, Sofky, undoubtedly a mild mannered software genius and a good person, has managed to make his point and prove the facts at the same time. Problem is, he just doesn't know it. But he does expect it.

"The bad news is that biologists are very far from figuring out the grand mystery of the brain. The good news is that software engineers might get there first." [ref]

He is right in that biologists are nowhere near understanding brain function.

How could they?

They are not looking for function.

They are looking for location.

Software engineers are not looking for function, either.

Even though both Softky and the Redwood Neuroscience Institute were both submitted the previous press release regarding part one of Softky's opinion piece Softky will stand firm in his assertion: "As argued in a recent article we have no idea of how the brain circuit works, how it learns, or why its pieces do what they do. And horrific technical difficulties - like measuring tiny electrochemical fluctuations in microscopic, intertwined neurons - make it unlikely that we'll understand the biological circuit any time soon." [ref]

It is quite understandable that Redwood would not recognize the work of any other source unless it was presented to them in a peer reviewed journal and touted loudly enough by the mainstream press to force them to realize their entire existence is a moot issue.

Redwood Neuroscience Institute was started in order to unravel the mysteries of the brain and like all other such ventures will never accept the reality of the task already being completed. To do so would negate their very existence.

Reading material from The Enticy Institute, especially the book, The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing, provides insight that can be felt by the reader to show how accurate the data is. That will not get in the way of Redwood, though. Softky shows the arrogance of title and the elitism of affiliation. There is no place in culture for bigotry, especially when it means ignoring fact in return for pride.

Softky begins his second illusionary piece with this: "What we desperately need - and what software and signal processing can help us with - is a theory of what a brain ought to do. A human brain is a black box with a million wires coming in and half a million going out; a rat's brain is smaller, with fewer wires, but faces the same basic signal-processing problems: what kind of input patterns can it expect, and how can it deal with them?" [ref]

Here is the 'ought to do' issue again. What would a brain: 'ought to do'? Well, if we believe at all in the dictionary (Merriam-Webster for those so inclined not to believe) the word 'ought' means: "used to express obligation 'ought to pay our debts', advisability 'ought to take care of yourself', natural expectation 'ought to be here by now', or logical consequence 'the result ought to be infinity'" {}.


'Ought' implies control of the observer. Does it not? If a debt ought to be paid, is not the 'ought', not the debt, and cannot only the payee 'ought' to pay it? If one 'ought' to take of yourself does indeed include 'your' then is not the observer attempting to control the thing being observed? Is not an expectation an assumption waiting to be fulfilled? Is not a 'logical consequence' an assumption based upon previous proven assumptions, whether correct or in error?

Those things argued are logical deductions, not assumptions. 'Ought' as used by Softky is assumed to be used as a verb, but let us say he intended it to be used as a noun: Merriam-Webster says: " moral obligation: DUTY" for the 'noun'.

We greatly doubt Softky intended to imply there is any moral obligation on the part of the brain to adhere to his or anyone else's observational deductions. We also doubt if there is any 'duty' on the part of the brain to lower itself to the simplicity of software engineering.

Softky starts with the assumption that the brain is unknown (even though he knows of this work, as does the Redwood Neuroscience Institute). He calls it a 'black box. That would mean he is admitting to not knowing himself. That is fine. It is understandable Redwood would not grasp the material they have read.

The first major error of software engineering thinking is: "what kind of input patterns can it expect". [ref]

Assumption: The brain must process what the observer thinks it receives, based upon the manner in which it is received, not on the manner in which it is processed.

The brain permits such assumptions. If it acted in that fashion it would permit no other assumption. One has to think that through before discarding it as not being a personal assumption.

Assumption: "the final wiring is based on experience". [ref] This assumption is not unexpected since all of neuroscience is of the belief that if something changes it must be the cause of what the thing does. Although partially true, where connectivity is determined by experience and processing, it is determined by, not causative of.

Assumption: "the brain learns about vision from the eye inputs, about speech from the ears, and about movement from the muscles". [ref] This assumption is likewise typical of observational deductions imposing observational perspective on a thing being observed. 1: The brain does not learn about anything from the sensors that collect inputs. It receives from sensors. It learns through its system of processing those inputs in relation to previous inputs. 2: Eyes, ears and other senses are regulators of brain system dynamics. Light does not enter the brain to be processed. Sound does not enter the brain to be processed. Light and sound effect the regulation of signals of the brain where the brain does the processing.

Assumption: "The other clue is that any given chunk of immature brain tissue is capable of doing any one of those tasks: the same primordial circuit can learn to analyze visual input or memorize words, and does so by making sense of the patterns and regularities in the outside world." [ref]

When a person who admits to knowing nothing utters, "and does so by" [ref]: red flags spring up on every continent. Or at least they should.

Softky is right in that every function in the brain is the same function. Softky is wrong in assuming that function has anything at all to do with how the brain, through its regulating sensors would observe itself.

Assumption: The process, which is the same in all sections of the brain, does not memorize words. Words are symbols represented by sounds or visual input. The brain deal in the senses, not in what the brain has concocted to use the senses.

Assumption: Tossing words around makes no sense when sense itself is concerned without proper definition: "and does so by making sense of the patterns and regularities in the outside world" [ref]

Assumption: "For example, pixels in real-world video signals are clumped into contours, moving objects, shadows. And output to real-world muscles (or pistons) needs to be patterned, coordinated, like the specific contractions of walking, grasping, or throwing." [ref]

The brain created the pixel. If it is a collection of pixels it would never have created it. It would have been too assumptive or it would have created it the moment knowledge reached the point where thoughts about what thought was were being thought. It took centuries.

Muscles do indeed need to coordinate and cause action but they do so based in shared focus, not in tiny pixilated steps.

"But we don't know how that slippery term "making sense of patterns" translates into mathematics or circuits. Forget for a moment how the brain does it. " [ref] No. Sorry, cannot do that. Its an opinion article about the brain. So how does the assumption that the brain looks for 'patterns' result in the concept of randomness? If the brain looked for patterns, then all brains would seek all patterns and the concept of random would be a moot issue, never to have been unearthed out of ignorance for a pattern, no matter how slight the pattern might be.

Since the discussion was about the senses, before jumping ahead into Softky's delusions, let us examine the senses in a short treatise:

Pixels happen in order. Senses happen in order as well. But where pixels require individual linear progression, senses require collective collusion in harmony. Start walking, and with each step, say a number and count up while doing so. Now stop. That would be pixels in the brain: not very good for determining anything other than sequential logic. Pretty much the reason why software engineers make nice code that has logical progression and pretty much why Softky's argument for the software engineer neuroscience savior, falls short.


Start walking.


Start counting up with every step but do it all with every step. If you take ten steps count 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 with the first step. Count 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,1 with the second step. Count 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,1,2, with the third step and so on. Each step accounts for each pixel's step, but each stop accounts for far greater resolution and efficiency as 10 sensors will have been staggered to receive data and send a regulated brain dynamic system signal of its piece of the single step. If you made those steps very slowly, one each 10 seconds you would be close to the input sensing processing the brain. Two samples per receptor per second, staggered so as to provide a whole greater than its parts, focused to provide a single perspective of the whole.

"Suppose you needed to program your "black box brain" to discover those input and output patterns on its own, from experience. What would you do?" [ref] You would make a fatal error. Your experience is of the nature where pixels do the smallest samples. Pixels are tiny indeed. But pixels are not at all like the brain.

We shall dispense with the flowery text written to inspire a visual interpretation of Softky's quest to write the "the software spec from hell" [ref] and get down to the specifics of his 'tricks'.

"Be forewarned: this task probably involves fancy math like hyperspace manifolds, Bayesian probabilities, and invariant transformations." [ref]

No it doesn't. It requires simple math. If it required anything more than the most simple math no further complication would ever come out of it.

"But that might not be enough. The system needs to find patterns among millions of inputs (say pixels), then represent them with fewer signals (contours and shapes), and ultimately with just a few signals ("bike moving here, car parked there"). There are lots of computer-science methods, like information theory and signal compression, for squeezing down many channels into a few, but they only work when we know what kind of signals we are trying to squeeze, and what we want to do with the result. " [ref]

The system does not need to find anything. The system IS the system and it is not pixels. Softky intends to impose the observation of what a brain does upon how it does it, which is exactly what AI has been doing for years.

Perhaps understanding inputs will help?

It is like a rolling ball in a barrel. It rolls round and round, inside the barrel until the barrel is nudged and then it changes course slightly to compensate for the force against its round and round action. That is what a sensor input receptor does. It regulates the amplitude of the brain's frequency. The ball keeps rolling against the walls of the barrel in a flat amplitude until the barrel is adjusted, causing a reaction in increased amplitude. Too much amplitude and the frequency stops. Too little and the ball simply rolls.

Of course that is a simplistic explanation but what would one expect from an amateur? Unless one considers amateur to be what it really is. Merriam-Webster says an amateur is: "one who engages in a pursuit, study, science, or sport as a pastime rather than as a profession and one lacking in experience and competence in an art or science."

Making money is not the judge of success. Poor people may be successful in life without ever becoming rich. And it appears that with all of that experience and absolutely not one single result of consequence but papers to be published, all of neuroscience is amateur and quite incompetent in the art of their science.

A far more descriptive explanation, enjoyable by visual thinkers is contained in The Human Brain Cafe presentation at Since all aspects of the process of brain function are online and offered free it is doubtful that Sofky would imagine it as having value. The purpose is the science and its helpful use, not the riches it could bring to someone whose goal is only to be rich.

"Then we encounter a major flaw in most pattern-recognition systems, like "Neural Networks", which is that they treat the input as a slide-show of isolated presentations. But real-world time flows smoothly. So to handle continuous real-time inputs, we need mathematical descriptions of inputs streaking through time, and the system must continuously accept new inputs and fit them into the context of preceding ones, say by continuously updating its model of the present based on the last minute's worth of data. " [ref]

No. Let us not say. That would be imposing a deduction upon a system responsible for the ability to make such a deduction and if the deduction was the system the system could have no other deduction.

If we can drop, 'the way computers work is how it all works' misconception for a moment: Time itself is a product of the brain. Not the field, mind you, but the misconception of it. Time itself, proves the mechanism of memory function in that it is indeed a duplicate of memory function as observed from the outside looking in. Observing from the inside looking out one would see the same process, only in the proper order. It means turning the observation upside down.

Look in a mirror. You see a reflection of yourself to yourself. Do you know that is the exact same image someone else looking at you sees directly head on?

Look at your car. What color is your car? If you say it is red, do you know that the light you are seeing as red is the light the car itself is rejecting? It is reflecting what it cannot absorb. That logically means the color your car really is, is the color you are not seeing.

Time is a product of memory. As it moves deeper and deeper into the past it gives the illusion that the past is not now, as 'now' is indeed not the past. But if one turns that upside down and looks at it from the perspective of the brain itself instead of the observer, one would notice that time is not moving into the past, memory is. And it is doing it by becoming smaller in amplitude. The concept of passing time is nothing more than shrinking memories. That concept is a bit counterintuitive and quite difficult for a visual thinker to grasp so we'll leave it alone at that unless anyone wishes to challenge it. All it takes to prove it is your own brain.

Real-time, as used by Softky is what is considered to be 'now'. We all know that computers need faster and faster processing to give the illusion of being 'real time'. The brain, on the other hand, is 'real time' so how would one concoct code to make a process 'real time' and still use the illusionary processing of the computer?

Ratio enhancement. Efficiency. Start slow and divide to increase. Not much sense to that? Think this through:

Take the number 100. Divide it by 2. Two 50's.

If each step was worth 100, then each step could make twice as many counts.

Take 50 and divide it by 2. Two 25's for each 50.

If each step was worth 100, then each step could make 4 times as many counts.

Or to put it like the brain works:

Take one second and represent it with a frequency of 35,721 hz. Divide that frequency by 2 to achieve 17,860.5 hz each. That would be the timing of a single input sensor: twice per second based on a 'base' frequency. Divide each receptor's 17,860.5 by 30 to achieve 595.35 hz. That division causes an exponential increase in processing speed for long-term memory functions. Take the long-term 595.35 hz and divide it again by 30 (exponential progression) to achieve 19.845 hz representing short-term memory processing speed. By dividing a base frequency we find the brain achieves an exponential increase in processing power, in the same single second.

To do that in software is simple. But it takes changing the misconception that greater efficiency and higher output requires only greater frequency. It actually requires less frequency and variable amplitude.


"So on the one hand, we need a system which uses the fact that each moment's input is intimately related to the next. But on the other hand, there are far too many inputs into a brain - millions of channels, millions of timesteps - to deal with "all at once." A good approach would be to break them down into bite-sized chunks - say fifty inputs over a hundred timesteps, chunks overlapping in both space and time to preserve continuity - and then let the chunks interact with each other in simple, stereotyped ways. Just like good software design." [ref]

To relate one to the next, allow them to have the same focus but place them a bit off focus then start their process at different intervals of the same base rate.

Such as: Start one at 35,721. Start the next at 35,720. The next at 35,719 and so on: all focused from the same input (eye, ear, etc) and all slightly off focus by placement and the result is a single whole, stretched over time.

Nothing is dealt with "all at once". The thing that defines order is very orderly. It is just not orderly in the manner in which knowledge has progressed from one 'guestimate' to the next.

The brain already breaks them down into single samples, not chunks. Brain processing is not inefficient. Good software design would do the same thing, but no one doing software is aware of such design.

"Wouldn't it be great if the same basic circuit element or algorithm (say a "pattern detection/memorization/encoding" module) could be re-used everywhere? The same algorithm could process either visual, tactile, or auditory information, and accept the output of other such modules as its own input. This is certainly what real brain modules look like, with the same stereotypes neural tissue everywhere. Maybe the brain actually works that way too (for example, there is recent evidence that the same brain tissue which does early-stage visual processing in sighted people will instead learn - in blind people - to memorize words. Same original wiring, vastly different ultimate use. " [ref]

What if the same great basic function was used, resulting in the same process: fundamental, instead of clumped?

The same algorithm processing every function in the brain: a simple fundamental algorithm that does not require a concoction like a 'module'. Not only would it do the same process for all senses (since it is processing the same thing from all senses, anyway) but it does so in nearly the same neurons.

With input and processing occurring at different divisional, exponentially faster samples, neurons become efficient when each pulse leaves many other pulses available to be used. One neuron may process many different pathways of the same sense or many different pathways of different senses. The presentation of The Human Brain Cafe has a nice visual explanation of shared processing and memory function as well as sensor processes.

Sighted people do not memorize pictures anymore than non-sighted people would memorize words. Neurons do not work in the same symbols the whole of the brain concocted to communicate with other brains. If it did, there would be no variation in language, music or art.

"Again, standard software practice. It helps if each little circuit element needs to know when it's doing a good job, and how to improve. For example, it might try predicting an upcoming signal, then measuring the prediction error and passing it to other modules as an indicator of reliability." [ref]

There is no 'I'm doing a good job' in the brain's system. That is something the system results in. Neurons do not 'try to predict' anything. The faster functioning process levels result in greater comparison of memory and projected outputs from memory and that results in predicting. It has nothing to do with the signal and there is no error, unless the physical system is defeated by disease or damage. There is no indicator of reliability other than the controlling biological clock that does indeed slow down when the system is under physical stress and speed up when the system is overdoing it. That is not standard software practice.

"Another good engineering principle is to specify what we really want - in this case, a truly generic processor for all different kinds of sensory data. If your only testbed is monochrome grayscale video signals of traffic, your circuit won't do other things. So the only way to build a robustly generic system is to design and test it on video and sound and tactile proprioception. To ensure full generality, you must specify full generality." [ref]

What we really want is to replicate and understand the brain. Why we want that is to help treat brains that need it. If we want it for any other reason we do not want what the brain does, but rather what a thief does: something for nothing as that is where "the software can do it all", concept is heading.

To ensure full compliance one must comply with the system, not dictate what the system 'ought' to be without a clue as to what the system actually is.

"Constructing an engineering solution to the brain's problem is hard - no one has gotten close to solving it yet--and there is no guarantee that it will produce a "brain", any more than designing a jetliner will produce a "bird". But it has several advantages over traditional biology as an approach. " [ref]

Funny thing: it has been solved: the brain has been constructed, in two different mobile autonomous devices and in two online-scaled versions. It has been proven to think on its own without programming and without random processes in the hardware version and without random processes in the software version. In long-term only, it has also been programmed, years ago into a computer game, free for the download. Its fundamental processes without memory speed enhancement is running the IQ test presented by The Enticy Institute.

Softky just doesn't know about it. Or if he does (as it would appear) he will not admit it, as to do so, would negate the Redwood Neuroscience Institute's reason for life. After all, if the trip is more important than reaching the destination, the trip must be continued whether someone else has already reached the destination or not. Reaching a destination does not fund research grants or keep researchers plodding along and writing papers and making names for themselves.

Another funny thing is that readers of The Register will conclude that Softky's claims of total failure by everyone else, especially anyone else, are true when in fact they suffer only from ignorance, a solvable situation, while most neuroscientists suffer from arrogant ignorance, an oft' times fatal career condition.

"For starters, it's a big, unsolved, important problem, which may be amenable to a common-sense engineering approach: first understand the problem, then work on a solution. And any amateur can try it: all one needs is pure thought and a computer; no lab. If some lone genius comes up with a solution, it is immediately testable with cameras and microphones, and is immediately replicable worldwide, just like Open Source. Once some kind of half-baked solution is available, others worldwide can apply iterated improvement, indefinitely tweaking and tuning the code. And of course a good solution to this granddaddy of signal-processing algorithms is worth big bucks. " [ref]

So we have found that Softky and Redwood have understood the problem "ought to be", but not what the problem really is: and therefore in an attempt to work on a solution, have been working on the wrong problem.

It is fascinating that Softky (and Hawkins) would deem anyone not of their elitist caliber to be using just "pure thought and a computer, no lab". Actually it is rather sad. The very thing they search to solve is ridiculed as the thing that would dare to be used to solve it. What a shame: and to do so without a "lab". (They must have missed the 'history' section of That must mean that anyone thinking through a problem using fundamental rules must have a "lab" or credibility is moot? Only an overblown organization or educational institution can accomplish knowledge? How so? Not too many intelligent people have a lab. That has been proven over and over again in neuroscience.

It also takes an important thing to pick up where a teacher leaves off: determination and desire. If anyone is truly interested in taking all of the completely freely provided information about the brain offered at and making what they seek, all it takes it reading. No, having the work already done for you is not an option. One element is missing from that collection to do it yourself. Doing so directly would take a person who did not have to work for a living since building such a thing in software would take over a year and actually cost money and since The Enticy Institute does not solicit funding, and never will, such task is beyond reach.

It would also take a computer with enough simultaneous processing to accomplish it. That takes money. It takes a dedicated programmer and that costs money. That is not happening. So as the seeker refuses to admit he has found what he seeks the result will be having to live in the knowledge that such knowledge is 'out there' and offered freely. It is refusal to accept that gets in the way of accomplishments.


Life is mostly about not making mistakes. Refusing is a mistake.

In fact, the offer is made to anyone desiring to make a brain, hardware or software: it is free. If only the builder knows where it came from then only the builder will know, until the next builder knows.

"In summary, the bad news is that biologists are very far from figuring out the grand mystery of the brain: the neural circuit is impenetrable and the basic functions and problem-space are undefined (Artificial Intelligence and "Neural Nets" notwithstanding). But the good news is that software engineers - who have just the right skills to specify the abstract problems of perception and action, and to hack up systems to solve them - might get to unravel the mystery first.®" [ref]

Too bad: there is a great deal of jobs open in the fast food industry. Perhaps applying software engineering to burgers will be the next big thing? Software engineers carry out tasks to make things happen. Software engineers attempting to solve problems with software is a lot like a street cleaner running for sheriff to clean up the town. Might do a grand job, but has the wrong lab and knowledge.

The grand mystery of the brain is only a mystery because the mystery is far more interesting than the solution. AI seeks to replicate what brains do. Redwood seems to replicate what brains 'ought' to do. What brains really do is a completed project.

If it were not, does anyone really think anyone would be wasting their time pointing out the obvious lack of contemplation by researchers, in press releases, that never get published anywhere else?


Design patterns for a Black Box Brain? By Bill Softky

The Problem With Ignorance Dr. Phillip C. McGraw, Psychologist's Mistake

The Problem With Ignorance
Dr. Phillip C. McGraw, Psychologist's Mistake


Dr. Phillip C. McGraw, Psychologist, was on the tube downstairs. My wife was watching, again, as she does most days, as Dr. McGraw is a kind and caring therapist who observes and deduces and is mostly right about what he deduces.

"NO!", came the exclamation from the living room. In asking what was wrong, my wife was quite vocal as she explained McGraw's horrible blunder.

The day is Wednesday, August 6, 2003. The show is "What Dr. Phil Knows About Men".

The problem is: Dr. Phil knows about one man and not one clue about the brain. He is not alone. Psychology is not the study of the brain, yet they treat its conditions with no definition of intelligence, no understanding of how it works and nothing but observation of past theories to use in evaluating it.

From, the show is highlighted as: "If you think the man in your life is stupid, insensitive, tuned out, selfish or clueless, you could be wrong. Dr. Phil offers up a no kidding, bottom line, genuine point of view about men and what makes them do what they do."

"Men and women are wired differently," says Dr. Phil, "so you've got to make a conscious decision to plug in, in different ways."

That is right. But what he said about the brain's wiring is totally and completely false.

"Men are hunters", explains the doctor, "who have always been in a role to look for food and comfort in efficient ways. Also, men are visually stimulated while women are emotionally stimulated."

That would also be right. It was what came next that is wrong.


"Men are visual thinkers," he said.

Some men are. Most men are aural thinkers. Thinking is both long and short-term and what Dr. Phil is referring to is the short-term thinking he is aware of.

Dr. Phil is obviously a visual short-term thinker, and as such, falls victim to the same problem every person has: they assume, since they think one way, all others do too.

Stimulation is only necessary for what is absent. Not for what is dominant. Stimulation is also a long-term quality. Most males, aurally long-term thinkers, are deficient in long-term visual stimulation and therefore seek out visual stimulation. Females, visually long-term thinkers, are deficient in long-term aural stimulation and therefore seek out aural stimulation.

In chapter three of "The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing":

"Had history recorded the event of the first utterance of a spoken human word it might very well have recorded the overwhelming desire of a female to aurally express her visually based feeling of equality with another human being."

"Had a male been responsible for the first spoken word his long term aural dominance having left a weaker visual long-term memory would seek to satisfy the difference through visual stimulation and could very well have given the first thorny flower to which the first word spoken in response could very well have meant, "ouch", in a new language."

"Psychiatry", [and psychology], "is rooted in observation and trial, planted in those persons with a desire to solve problems of mental causes either for their own gratification or for the gratification of seeing others grateful. It is amazing to note although that the term 'cause' can be so eloquently pigeonholed."

"Once a 'cause' under this confined definition of the word is identified it becomes removed from psychiatry and falls under medical science."

"Historically only two psychiatric disorders have been definitively linked to causes. General paresis of the insane (now known to be a late stage of the disease of syphilis) and pellagrous insanity is caused by niacin deficiency (the mental result of the disorder once referred to as scurvy.) Ironically neither of these are any longer thought of as psychiatric disorders." That makes every single current mental condition treated by psychiatrists to not have known causes."

"Since nothing is defined just about any treatment if believed by the subject has the same chance at working. Psychiatrists find success in one form of therapy or another and continue to treat results of brain conditions with drugs that mask the result without addressing the cause and therapies that support the subjective instead of unmask the objective."

"Instead of the frequency of success being by addressing the objective cause it is the frequency of success by addressing the subjective result which does, to some degree, reduce support connections to past problems but in no way increases the connections to current relevance."

"I suppose such 'find the cause but if you find the cause we can't treat it any longer' mentality justifies keeping therapy sessions running into the years in frequency visits where the same subject having the same results from a repair person who comes in once a week to remove their TV for an hour to fix it and years later continues to insist he can still fix the TV would sue."

"Now, is not what we experienced: it is what we do with that experience whether we blindly follow a leader into becoming the drone needed to remain a follower or we choose to take control ourselves and lead."

Dr. Phil's motives, other than ratings, are obviously to be helpful, but when a person has that kind of distribution of every spoken word, an error like placing the wrong short-term process on a gender, is devastating.

The response to one of the top questions about the brain, in chapter three: "Are boys smarter then girls?" shows the use of the level of brain processing:

"Males and females are indeed different but smarter is not the measurement. How smart a person is has to do with that person, not their gender, race or personal desires. Human females are primarily visual long-term creatures. Human males are primarily aural long-term creatures.

How smart a person is, is determined by how much the short-term is in control over long-term in the battle to rule the body. And then 'smart' can be judged instead of 'knowledge recall'."

"Why are there so many definitions of things no one knows about?"

"Every person has their own perspective on observable norms. What may be caused by one thing to one person may be caused by another thing to another person. Most often the only thing in common with the perceptions is the thing being perceived."


"Therefore, a name can be given that is agreeable to all perspectives and the more agreeable it is the more reinforced it will become and the most resistant to being tossed out it will be, as the closer it reaches the point of becoming its own topic."

"The more support of that new topic the person is subjected to, especially in teaching environments where retention of what was learned is paramount to the evaluation, dissection and repair of what is being learned the more the topic becomes real on its own accord."

"The closer to the perception of real it is to the believer, the more support it will receive from 'believers'. Whether it is mythical notions of sperm constructed moist brains (one would have to read chapter three to understand that reference) or the belief that one can ever lower one's goals to pretend to reach one at all, the act of knowledge acquisition left unparsed, unevaluated and supported through arranged methods, the result is the same: If evolution ever started on the path of the rules of golf we would have no Pebble Beach."

Golf is a visual short-term thinker's game.

From chapter eight, "Facing Your Brain - Taking Control":

"Humans, like most other species is split into two main parts, by gender: Female is visual. Male is aural. That means that long-term memory is by default faster in visual for females and faster in aural in males. The term 'faster' does not mean out of synch. It means corrupted synchronization and it is not at all very much difference."

It applies to the return of memory processing, by making 'faster': equal greater resolution, or more definitive sampling.

Even though the topic's title may not indicate it, Chapter Six, "Comedy! The Brains Of Williams, Mochrie and Hicks", goes even deeper into the differences of gender dominant thinking processes.

The most definitive description comes from Chapter Seven, "Understanding Sexual Preference":

"Normally, (which means the majority) of human brains are indicative of their gender. Females, 'normally' are visual long-term creatures, with either aural or visual short-term processing. Males, 'normally' are aural long-term creatures with either aural or visual short-term processing."

"The 'masculine' traits all stem from aural dominated long-term while the 'alpha' male dominant, head of the gang, born leader is the aural dominant short-term male with aural dominant long-term memory. The slower the short-term processing is in that instance the more 'macho' they are."

"The 'feminine' traits all stem from the visual dominated long-term while the very feminine submissive, born victim is the visually dominant short-term female with visually dominant long-term memory. The slower the short-term processing is in that instance the more 'valley-girl' they are."

"Just as it is possible for the aural and visual to vary in short-term of 'normal' gender 'specific' persons, so it is possible, and in fact the cause of the opposite mental 'preference'."

"'Normal' means the most accurate fit to the architecture."

"Females are visual long-term, as their evolutionary role of the 'gatherer' and 'child-bearer' require a visual interaction, where the conceptual aural long-term female, would never suffice. If females were not visual, the species would not exist today. Visual receives in order to create."

"Males are aural long-term, as their evolutionary role of the 'hunter' and 'protector' require an aural interaction, where the visually controlled long-term male, would never suffice. If males were not aural the species would not exist today. Aural creates in order to see."

"Every aspect of the brain is a balancing act. Each teeter, causes a totter (whatever that might be, it sounds good), for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and so forth, and so on."

"Female is balanced with the male, where female is the default state of all potential humans."

"Aural is balanced with the visual, where female is visual default and male is aural default."

"There are variations in all cases."

"Variations are not bad. Variations are not evil. Variations are normal BECAUSE variations balance OTHER variations."

Dr. Phil, declaring on a highly rated television program hosted by a respected Psychologist that MALES ARE VISUAL THINKERS: is the same as saying all cars are red because one has a red car.

In reviewing the cases presented during his show the same thread is in them all: The females on the show are visual long-term thinkers and in the cases shown, visual short-term thinkers as well. The males are aural long-term thinkers and aural short-term thinkers as well.

It is simple to deduce the problem of those relationships.

"Men and women are wired differently," says Dr. Phil, "so you've got to make a conscious decision to plug in, in different ways."


It helps, Dr. Phil, if you get the wiring right.

Quotes of Dr. Phil are directly from the Dr. Phil web site and are the property of Dr. Phil and probably Oprah.


Why Knowing How The Brain Works Is Important: Especially Now!

"More than 54 million Americans have a mental disorder in any given year, although fewer than 8 million seek treatment. Depression and anxiety disorders - the two most common mental illnesses - each affect 19 million American adults annually. Approximately 12 million women in the United States experience depression every year - roughly twice the rate of men. Each year, eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa affect millions of Americans, 85-90 percent of whom are teens and young adult women. Up to one-half of all visits to primary care physicians are due to conditions that are caused or exacerbated by mental or emotional problems." [1]

Research into brain function is split among those who seek the 'holy-grail' of the algorithm to use in every conceivable software application and those who seek to know how it works so they can treat it, to help ease pain and cure disease.

A few, try to determine how it works, to help heal it from itself.

Not too long ago when a person felt emotionally distraught, the most obvious conclusions were made. The outward signs of illness were what resulted in diagnoses so those signs (symptoms) were treated.

"One in five children have a diagnosable mental, emotional or behavioral disorder. And up to one in 10 may suffer from a serious emotional disturbance. Seventy percent of children, however, do not receive mental health services. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is one of the most common mental disorders in children, affecting 3 to 5 percent of school-age children. As many as one in every 33 children and one in eight adolescents may have depression." [1]

At first, mentally ill persons were simply discarded into homes and cages. They were tortured. Many brutal and illogical things were done to them to just get them to stop the symptoms. The symptoms offended observers.

Then, the symptoms were treated. Finally, the notion came that perhaps symptoms had causes and theories began to wonder what those causes might be.

The direction of mental health, ever since, has been based on the theories of what the brain does, which is actually, no different than the symptoms, what the brain does.

How the brain works gives rise to the real reasons for what the brain does and it has something to do with the symptoms but very, very little.

The brain is actually quite simple. It works the same way in everything it does. But since it has variations of configuration and what it does is heretofore unknown, why things happen and result in emotional distress has been a quest through trial and error: more error than success.

"Suicide is the third leading cause of death for 15- to 24-year-olds and the sixth leading cause of death for 5- to 14-year-olds. The number of attempted suicides is even higher. Late-life depression affects about 6 million adults, but only 10 percent ever receive treatment. Among adults age 55 and older, 11.4 percent meet the criteria for having an anxiety disorder.


Brain Basics:


The process the brain uses is the same throughout the brain. That process is the most simple of algorithms. It is nothing more than a speech of one to an audience of one.

In a speech of one, one person is imparting detail: the audience of one is accepting that detail and combining it with detail that is similar from their past (long-term memory).

The result, in the mind of the audience of one, is the perception of the speech.

That is how the brain works: in dogs.

What goes in, is compared to what has been put in and the result is what was done before, tempered or excited by what has just gone in.

In dogs, how fast that reaction is, is determined by the degree of temperament or excitation.

In humans, the process has another level, but most people do not know it is there and barely use it at all.

Doctors, soldiers, scientists: the knowledge intensive professions, are most indicative of those who do not use that second level of processing very much, but most people do not use it either. Those who do, stand out, as they make things happen, advance the science, break the rules and usually have the scars to show for it.

Intelligence in dogs is to what degree the speed of memory is faster than the speed of input. If it were the same speed, like a computer, the result would be mirror image responses.


In humans, the second level of brain processing is the same process. But instead of accepting external input and comparing it to long-term memory, it takes the output of long-term and input comparison and compares it to itself, running at a much faster speed than the result of the first level, it works on.

That is similar to two buckets of water, one on top of each other, the first bucket is filled up and spills into the second bucket, but that bucket is smaller and fills up faster, so it unloads faster. It unloads to a tube that refills the fist bucket. Regardless of how fast the first bucket empties, it's water volume remains the same as the second bucket is smaller and refills it: a simple explanation for a more detailed process.

That is all there is to what the brain does. It does push output from both long and short-term processes and depending upon which one is in control the output will either be reactionary (long-term) or contemplative (short-term). Reactions are almost always wrong. Or at least, they are almost always, not correct.

The algorithm (((a-a')/2)+ a')is the process and it has a seven step lifespan. Rather than bore the reader with a string of calculations, simply replace "a" with any arbitrary numerical value and replace "a'" with any other value, less than "a" as it represents the input value while "a" represents the memory value. At the seventh calculation your answers will have reached the point of absurdity and never reach equality.

Just like dropping a ball: drop one and see it cut each subsequent bounce by half until It reaches the inability to bounce. Count the times. (Throwing the ball or dropping it from a height too great is not fair.)

The other issue is: what the frequencies the brain processes are.

Everything has a frequency. Different species have different frequencies. It is the difference in frequency that keeps inter-species procreation from happening. A rock has a frequency. It just does not have amplitude. Life has amplitude. Details on the frequency and what it is may be found in the book, "The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing", available free at

A simple process, in its own spectrum, is used by every sense. The two most dominant senses are vision and hearing, or visual and aural.

In dogs, the aural process is dominant. In cats, the visual process is dominant. In humans, either one can be dominant in both long and short-term processing.

With most human beings using short-term processing only for the sense of self-awareness, long-term memory is dominant and that results in reactions to input and the short-term awareness of not being in control of most of them.

It results in depression, anxiety and most every other mental disorder of humans. It also results in emotions.

Emotions are the output of long-term memory, reacting to input, without control of short-term brain process.

Your family pet shows you exactly how it works.


If you come home everyday and romp and slap and yell at your dog while intending to play, your dog will become romp, slap and yell.

You may be doing so with the feeling that a good guard dog needs to be rough and ready.

A good guard dog is loyal and loved. Guarding a loved human being makes the dog lovable and not excitable and results in far more protective measures when necessary than a dog treated like property or worse. The same applies to children.

Where dogs are able to pro-act, in relation to the degree of their intelligence (determined by the speed enhancement of memory processing versus input reception), humans are not only able to pro-act but are also able to stop reacting.

Reacting is the main cause of emotional distress, anger and acts of violence.

Understanding how the brain works permits children to be taught how to think, in school: preparing them for a life of evaluation instead of the current practice of reaction while being able to recite the latest lesson of facts and knowledge.

Teachers who have been trained to teach thinking can provide students with the tools necessary to overcome rejection, contemplate consequences and do so without punishment.

A child physically punished enough will remain long-term dominant and have a much harder time in later life dealing with life and its rejections and unexpected consequences.

With human brains, long-term memory can be dominant in the visual or aural sense. The female gender is normally visually dominant. The male gender is normally aural dominant.

Short-term memory dominance being different than long-term memory dominance lends itself to good and not so good results.

A male aural long-term child with visual short-term may feel out of place among peers and begin to feel more female, while a female with visual long-term and aural short-term may feel more masculine. That used to be considered a tomboy but now can be misunderstood to be a different sexual preference. Read the chapter on Sexual Preference in "The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing" to understand what it is and how it works.

With so many people suffering from mental conditions, brought on by a lack of short-term dominance, and there existing exercises and methods by which to 'turn-up' short-term dominance, not teaching it to students in young grades is only making them tomorrow's victims.

It is imperative that the knowledge of how the brain works breaks through the academic barrier and is comprehended by those able to put it into action.

Humans today are at the top of the evolutionary pathway. If there is to be any further growth it must occur within, with the system provided in the brain to make it happen.

The Enticy Institute is committed to developing curriculum, to provide training and mentoring to teachers so that children of this generation can grow up in control of their brains.

Children who grow up not in control of their brains are susceptible to influence by the most interesting and most promising voice. It is what makes some people give up their lives in suicide bombings, when what is hoped for, has a greater value, than the life they already have.

School shootings, gang violence, and suicides: the crumbling sense of self-importance. These things and many more can be solved by giving the children of today the knowledge to use their brain for more than storage devices, repeating what they learn and living by what they have already lived through.

The reward of doing just this simple thing is far greater than any amount of money can ever replace.


The Politics of Brain Function

Albert Einstein once said, "Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. That's relativity." [7] It is also perspective. Opening a piece on the politics of brain function with a quotation from Einstein is a perspective issue as well. Some may find it absurd and preposterous by focusing on the source, while others would contemplate the quotation while focusing on the quotation.

The perspective of the observer determines relativity as it does the perception of reality as it is permitted by the method that results in the form of observation.

Much discussion has been forthcoming regarding reality. The basic premise was argued by Francis Bacon. "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." Chicken or egg? Reality existed before consciousness pretended to understand it or consciousness could not pretend to get it so wrong for so long.

Reality exists independent of consciousness. Before humans, (those conscious creatures who dare to impose their perspective upon reality) there were creatures who depended upon reality without the baggage of attempting to make it fit their perspective. Had those creatures attempted to change reality it would not be reality and they would not have evolved to adapt to it.

The theory of evolution requires a reality that must be obeyed. That has not stopped humans from attempting to ignore it.


"The statement 'Reality is Absolute' is the explicit recognition of the primacy of existence. This means that reality is not subject to wishes, whims, prayers, or miracles. If you want to change the world, you must act according to reality. Nothing else will affect reality. If you evade this fact, your actions will most likely not have their desired effects." [8]

"The primacy of existence states the irrefutable truth that existence is primary and consciousness is secondary. Consciousness is the faculty which perceives and identifies existents (things that exist). For two reasons we say that existence is primary, that consciousness requires existence and that there is no consciousness without existence. Because consciousness identifies existents, there can be no consciousness without something existing to perceive. Nothing can have an identity (to be identified) without existing. The fact that something is identified necessarily implies its existence which necessarily implies existence in general. Thus there is no consciousness without existence." [8]

"Because consciousness identifies existents, consciousness itself must exist in order to do the identifying. Along the lines of Descartes cogito, to be conscious (to identify), a consciousness must exist. A faculty can not operate and not exist at the same time. A verb without a noun makes no sense, and the noun must exist in order for the verb to take place. Consciousness is not responsible for creating reality or creating an individual reality. It is completely dependent upon reality. Existence is primary because it is independent of, makes possible, and is a prerequisite of consciousness." [8]


"All forms of mysticism derive from the false premise of the primacy of consciousness, which is demonstratively false." [8]

Therein develops the difference between the types of brain function required to establish the propensity for either a liberal or a conservative mind. But let us not jump past the attempts to ignore the cause.

The debate has raged for quite a long time. Perspective has gotten in the way, every step.

Scientists like to lump concepts into easily identifiable names. One such 'name' is 'contingent identity', which is a discussion of consciousness over-powering reality. Materialism is where it is derived (yet another 'name'). Consciousness itself is one of the objections in philosophy to materialism. Held over from the time when very little was known, scientifically, the debate raged over spirits and ghosts.

Materialism was born out of the replacement for any spiritual connection to reality. It was more of distaste for the elusive than a replacement for it. Democritus took reality as being explained by matter. Science has since learned that matter is explained by fields. Fields are as yet unable to receive agreement. All things could previously be explained by using matter in motion: therefore the 'classical' physics model. Since then the quantum model has been tested and retested and observations have deduced it to be nearly reliable. But...

Nothing much has really changed. Today science speaks of what is observed. If it can be seen it can be believed. If it cannot be seen it cannot be believed. It is it seen it is the cause. If it cannot be seen it has either no cause or its cause it randomness itself.

There has never been a concept that could be seen and no concept could ever be random.

Gottlob Frege put forth the concept that observation is deceiving in his reference to the 'morning' and 'evening' 'star'. What philosophers had observed in the morning star and had observed in the evening star were actually, due to scientific investigation, one in the same, planet Venus. Science was not able to identify the concept of contingent identity between the morning and evening stars until it reached a point that identifying the same celestial body as responsible for two completely different observations came from its own independent observation. The concept of the two being the same was never 'material'.

J.J.C. Smart, a modern materialist by 'name' put forth in a 1963 article that consciousness was identical with states of the brain. His argument was, essentially in more modern terms, that the reality of the hardware determined the potential of the software.

Philosopher Norman Malcolm argued against that concept, but not for the logical reason shown above. Malcolm mixed results with cause in saying that 'brain phenomena and 'mental phenomena' do not have a 'contingent identity'. One leads to the next. How more contingent would one want? But both arguments discuss reality from the basis of the conscious observer's consciousness which is indeed "demonstratively false".


Back to Liberal vs. Conservative:


In a now famous study, "Assistant Professor Jack Glaser of the University of California, Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy and Visiting Professor Frank Sulloway of UC Berkeley joined lead author, Associate Professor John Jost of Stanford University's Graduate School of Business, and Professor Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland at College Park" [6] published what amounts to one form of brain function evaluating the other form of brain function and coming to the determination that perspective is right and reality does not exist without it. (Demonstratively false.)

After wading through fifty years of research literature (observations of opinions of others about opinions of others' observations) they came to the conclusion that "the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality". [6]

So let us examine just those two assumptions before embarking on why they made them.

What is a "resistance to change"? It is the term applied to the observation of the results of something that was determined by the observers to be a resistance to change. Could it not also be a determination to evaluate before accepting difference? Could it not also be a result of contemplation that often resulted itself in rejection of a 'change' for very logical conceptual reasons? Could it not be simply the observer's perspective of what they did not like about conservatives?

Yes, it could be all three. But a 'resistance to change' is a result of observation, not a cause.

What is "a tolerance for inequality"? It is the term applied to the observation of the results of something that was determined by the observers to be a tolerance for inequality. Could it not also be a determination to evaluate before accepting difference? Could it not also be a result of contemplation that often resulted itself in rejection of a perceived inequality for very logical conceptual reasons? Could it not be simply the observer's perspective of what they did not like about conservatives?

Yes, it could be all three. But a 'a tolerance for inequality' is a result of observation, not a cause.

"The avoidance of uncertainty, for example, as well as the striving for certainty, are particularly tied to one key dimension of conservative thought - the resistance to change or hanging onto the status quo, they said." [6] Could that also not be simply a rejection of absurd conceptual excuses for change without logical justification? Of course it could.

Liberals do not think in concepts. Conservatives do. How concepts are created in the brain, versus that other form of thinking responsible for the liberal perspective is what this piece is about. Aren't you glad you finally reached it.

Once a liberal has created a visual image of the reality they have determined through observation to be reality for the rest of the world: it is like being faced with the statement: black is white and white is black.

White is the collection of all colors, while black is the absence of all colors; or is it that black is the collection of all colors while white is the absence of all colors?

Depends on the perspective and method of observation. It is relative.

If one is speaking of light as a source, black would be the absence of all colors. But if one is speaking of light as reflecting, black would be the collection of all colors. It is why in HTML, the code 000000 (a big nothing) is black, while the code ffffff (the opposite of nothing) is white. But when mixing paint, a mix of 000000 would give you white, while a mixture of ffffff would give you black. The absence of color is white, all colors is black.

The concept that black is white and white is black is not that the colors are the same, it is that the result of different observations are the same. The only thing in the way of admitting it is the perspective of the observation; Einstein's relativity.

To understand how the brain can result in two completely different forms of thinking , one has to understand what the humans brain's functions are. This explanation is a condensed and simplistic version of what the reader will find in detail in the book, "The Brain is a Wonderful Thing", available through EnticyPress.Com. (Free)


1: To compare, combine and output.


2: To compare, combine and output.


3: To compare, combine and output.


In the first level, (1) input is compared to long-term memory and then sent to output for motion and to short-term for (2).

In the second level, (2) the result of (1)'s comparison is compared to short-term memory and sent to output and back to short-term memory (as short-term memory in humans is a loop, which creates the concept of 'you') and to long-term memory (which is how you remember you are you).


In the third level (3) both outputs are compared and the result is sent to motion which is compared to input which creates feedback.


That is as simple as it is.


What makes it complicated to understand is the mechanisms of each level and the diversity of inputs. How such diverse inputs combine to create a single thinking entity has everything to do with the process of memory and the biological clock.

Memory is the most complex of the two issues. Memory has to created through comparison to input, be sent down a pathway for retention, and in some way be sent back for processing in the same order it was sent for retention. Complicated? Not at all.

Memory is fired in synchronous order. What goes in first, comes out first. If it were any other way, you would be remembering the past backwards. What good would that be?

This is how memory functions: If you imagine a very tall ladder (so tall that standing at the top of it, its length provides perspective making the ladder's base appear to be smaller). Starting at the top you feed a half full glass of water down the right upright. It reaches the first rung. At the juncture it meets a second glass (the biological clock's base frequency value), filled to the rim. The two join and the resulting 3/4 filled glass is sent up the left upright to meet the input comparison process. Just add that process for each rung, and step the process in logical order and the ladder takes on the appearance of a flowing process where what goes down, creates what comes up. The equality of the base value from the biological clock maintains credibility of the returning 'memory'. If you are a short-term visual thinker, refer to the animation located at EnticyPress.Com for a depiction of the memory process in action.

Become sick enough and the base clock frequency value reduces, making memory recall cloudy.

The biological clock may seem complex but it is not.

When you determine time you do so by seeking multiplication functions; (ie: addition). When the body determines time it does so by division; (ie: subtraction). It is simply upside down to the output and therefore observed to be upside down to the normal method of telling time. How can division result in multiplication?

As each memory value passes lower on each rung of memory it becomes smaller. As it returns up the other upright for recall it becomes larger. Relativity. The further down the ladder memory goes, the smaller it is and the smaller the returning value will be. That is how you perceive previous events to be in the 'past'. It is also how you perceive time to pass into the 'past' (therefore appearing to move into the future).

The clock starts with a base frequency, which in humans, ranges from 35,436 to 36,006 hz. (Other species range differently which prohibits inter-species mating). From that base frequency, all levels of brain function occur. Each level functions at a different division of the base in linear order. Let us use the average frequency of 35,721 to investigate how it division turns into multiplication.



ie: Base: 35,721

/2 35,721/2 = 17860.5hz (firing frequency of input receptors 2x per second)

/10 35,721/10 = 3572.1 (firing frequency of motor functions)

/30 17860.5/30 = 595.35hz (firing frequency of long-term comparison to input and long-term memory functions)

/30 595.35/30 = 19.845 (firing frequency of short-term comparison to long-term output)

Divisions of a base frequency place firing rates:

Input: 2 per second

Long-term memory: 60 per second

Short-Term memory: 1800 per second

Motion: 10 per second


The greater the division, the greater the multiplication. In order to create an exponential process, one need only apply the same frequency to the previous result in division and the end result is a multiplication of rate.

That is the most efficient method to cause multiplication. From one base frequency, comes multiple levels of exponentially increased firing rates. It makes for interesting and confusing visual observations. An interesting example of using division to reach exponential multiplication is housed at EnticyPress.Com under the 'Wave Calculator' link. That excel spreadsheet starts with an average population human frequency and divides to create the exponential frequencies of a standard 88 key piano. It too, is free.

Understanding how memory works and how the firing rates of the brain are determined leads to applying them both in the diverse inputs of receptor type. (Yes, we're getting closer to understanding Liberal and Conservative brains.)

Each process in the brain functions in the exact same manner. It is how visual memory can be processed in the same 'hardware' as aural memory, smell, taste, pressure and temperature. There are different types of Neurons but the process of a neuron does not differ.

Scientists have been enamored with the latest visual toy: fMRI. By watching blood flow rates they have determined that the more blood is needed in a specific piece of brain real estate, the more that function is taking place in that real estate. That is a lot like determining the noise of a dance hall is where the logical debate of the next door courthouse takes place since it is louder. It is visual thinking perspective determining reality without relevance to reality.

As fMRI's will show (yes, they are good for something) the two primary functions of the brain are visual and aural processes. All other sensory functions take up far less real estate.

A battle rages in the brain for mechanical dominance in both long and short-term memory processing as well as between them.

As depicted in a far more elaborate method in the book, "The Brain is a Wonderful Thing", the following different eight types of human brain dominance are:


1: Female Long-term visual dominance with short-term visual dominance (typical female)

2: Male Long-term aural dominance with short-term aural dominance (typical male)

3: Female Long-term visual dominance with short-term aural dominance (tom boy female)

4: Male Long-term aural dominance with short-term visual dominance (compassionate male)

5: Female Long-term aural dominance with short-term visual dominance (lesbian potential)

6: Male Long-term visual dominance with short-term aural dominance (gay potential)

7: Female Long-term aural dominance with short-term aural dominance (lesbian)

8: Male Long-term visual dominance with short-term visual dominance (gay)


But to listen to the 'experts' one would not dare concern oneself with how a function operates, only with what it results in. Brains result in things that are observable. One of those things is 'emotion'. Emotion is actually nothing more than a long-term memory motor output without much short-term motor control. The less short-term control, the more emotional.

From the New York Times: "Studies of stroke victims, as well as scans of normal brains, have persuasively shown that the amygdala plays a key role in the creation of emotions like fear or empathy." [1]

Yes, there are those real estate parcels in the brain that are said to play a part in all sorts of observable outcomes of the brain. Not one has ever been attributed to a function by the visual thinking scientists who are simply not contemplating their observances, other than to connect and relate them to another observance. That makes the science of neuro-insight, the "demonstratively false" mysticism of the "false premise of the primacy of consciousness".

The quote from the New York Times was in relation to the study at UCLA. That study, already shown above to be flawed in its deductions is drawn upon assumptions that emotions make a person somehow better and that leaves the relatively non-emotional Republican brain somehow insufficient.

In reality (the real one, not the perceived and concocted one) emotions are at fault for nearly every mental condition that pays the bills for psychiatry and psychology.

Long-term memory is reactionary. Short-term memory is pro-actionary. Long-term memory in control of a person's brain results in emotional reactions that help form support for previous long-term reactions. The result is a person who reacts.

A person who reacts finds a proactive person to be exactly the opposite. After all, if you were sure beyond your imagination that your reaction to an emotional event was the correct reaction, then a person who did not display such a reaction would not be 'normal' to your perceived reality.

That accounts for the liberal brain's refusal to believe that others may think differently and that the reality they have created from experience and input is actually reality and not their perception of reality.

"...some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include: Fear and aggression, Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, Uncertainty avoidance, Need for cognitive closure, Terror management." [6]

Each of these 'attributes' imposed upon another through observation and biased personal realities is deemed to be what the label says it is. But what are they really?

Fear and aggression: Fear is apprehension and actually one of the only things that has kept the human race from doing things that can destroy it. The lack of it can cause the same result as the inability to feel pain. Aggression is the product of a dual aural brain (if it is proactive) and has accounted for the preservation of the species. It is why the default brain condition of males has been type (2) Aural-Aural (or the alpha male). Without that conceptual double layer fear could occur at the wrong time.

Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity: Dogmatism is an observation, not a condition. It requires an observer to make the distinction of being assertive and at the same time being unrealistic. One person's unrealistic is another person's reality. An intolerace of indecision is a trait that has permitted the species to not put up with its lunatic fringe. To be tolerant of ambiguity is to permit less than logic to take control. Listing it as a trait of conservatives surely places the blame squarely on the researchers to defend the proper position of being indecisive.

Uncertainty avoidance: To avoid uncertainty is to evaluate certainty. To claim that the lack of evaluation of certainty is somehow a bad thing is to desire uncertainty, which would be a fast track to end the species.

Need for cognitive closure: This one is simply amazing to a conceptual dual aural thinker. Not that others are not likewise absurd, this one tends to place the coating on the cake. Cognitive closure means to have a lack of uncertainty and a unambiguous evaluation resulting in discovery. For a group of scientists to declare that having a need to finding the answer is a bad thing should mean they should leave their chosen field. Science is about finding answers yet today's scientists are more interested in protecting and supporting theory. Even Stephen Hawking has made that error. "'Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?' Professor Hawking: If the set of rules and the equations are not the same thing and there is only one of them, and if it could not explain what causes it all, then it could not be the unified law. Theories are not what science seeks." [9] "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein, again.

Terror management: Notice the term was not 'crisis' management. That is a function left to liberals after being forced to realize the image controlling their beliefs is a lie, no matter how slight. "The terror management feature of conservatism can be seen in post-Sept. 11 America, where many people appear to shun and even punish outsiders and those who threaten the status of cherished world views, they wrote." [6] It is interesting to note that the concept of death escapes the visual image not already containing it.

"The avoidance of uncertainty, for example, as well as the striving for certainty, are particularly tied to one key dimension of conservative thought - the resistance to change or hanging onto the status quo, they said." [6]

Well said by liberal minds. Contemplating the concept of the absurdity of uncertainty to anything progressive and the absurdity of assigning certainty to a 'condition' instead of the POINT OF RESEARCH could only be considered logical when the things being discussed amount to concepts that a visual image cannot reproduce.

Liberal brains are based in images that are created from input which means the liberal brain is defending its past without regard for its present, let alone its future. It is why the concept of 'consequence' never enters into a liberal potential.

"Concerns with fear and threat, likewise, can be linked to a second key dimension of conservatism - an endorsement of inequality, a view reflected in the Indian caste system, South African apartheid and the conservative, segregationist politics of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-South S.C.)." [6]

Here, the researchers deduce that the mental picture they have of what they consider to be improper applies to the focus of their study in general (conservatives are evil) when in the real reality, such behavior is from the lunatic fringe and the age old retention of tradition imposed upon a people to keep them in line and under the power of rulers who could never allow freedom to gain a foothold in fear it would topple the caste system, the apartheid and the ignorance of bigotry.

"Disparate conservatives share a resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, the authors said. Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form. Talk host Rush Limbaugh can be described the same way, the authors commented in a published reply to the article." [6] Showing an ignorant bigotry of their own the researchers declare tyrants and a detested (from the left) American President as being conservatives because why?

Reagan did not preach a return to an idealized past, he called for and led a country back to the real reality.


Hitler and Mussolini did not preach a return to an idealized past they both abused the long-term thinking public through mob control into falling for their lies through finding, and then capitalizing on a manufactured common enemy. Much as today's lunatic wing of the Democratic party invokes emotions from Al Gore and whatever it is Howard Dean attempts to do.

Reagan detested inequality in any form, while Hitler and Mussolini portrayed a class equality based on a common class enemy. It is the visual thinkers who fell for it and helped make the mobs that followed the leader who created the best personally appealing visual image.

Rush Limbaugh states conceptual objections to the lunacy of visual thinking and does not know he's doing it. Sean Hannity addresses issues from a conceptual perspective as well and does not know he's doing it. The power of talk radio is completely embraced by the dual aural thinking hosts that rule it. Radio is conceptual.

In one of the most hilarious lines of the UCLA study's report: "The latest debate about the possibility that the Bush administration ignored intelligence information that discounted reports of Iraq buying nuclear material from Africa may be linked to the conservative intolerance for ambiguity and or need for closure, said Glaser." [6] Actually it was linked to a liberal lying for liberal gain. That concept was completely missed by the biased researchers.

Steven Johnson, author of 'Mind Wide Open: Your Brain and the Neuroscience of Everyday Life,' writing in the New York Times said: "Could the U.C.L.A. researchers be creating the political science of the future? Consider this possibility: the scientists do an exhaustive survey and it turns out that liberal brains have, on average, more active amygdalas than conservative ones. It's a plausible outcome that matches some of our stereotypes about liberal values: an aversion to human suffering, an unwillingness to rationalize capital punishment and military force, a fondness for candidates who like to feel our pain. " [1]

What it actually shows is a dependence on long-term reactionary brain function. If one would just unplug the short-term process liberals would make wonderful cats.

With an active short-term sense of self, liberals suffer far greater reactionary emotional conditions. They are controlled by the input they allow to remain in brain. If that input matches previous input it supports the mental image of reality of that person. Almost no amount of logic or reason is going to make that person disagree with the perspective reality they live.


Conservatives do not have that problem.


Thinking in words does not permit an image to form. Thinking in words does not permit a concept to be generated other than through conceptual comparison. That process causes visual thinkers to believe the aural thinker to be:

"Strangely enough, conservatives aren't all that much different than regular people like you or me. In fact, if not for the fact that they are unable to refrain from speaking loudly for periods of longer than 45 seconds, they might outwardly blend right in with the rest of normal society! (This is not taking into account the fact that the vast majority of conservatives have chosen the guise of well-dressed overweight white men, thereby making them much easier to spot.) No, to see the most important differences, one must look inside. ...rather than housing the standard brain that most people have, this area of a conservative instead is outfitted with something called an "RR" Chip, which stands for "Rhetoric Regurgitation." This chip allows the conservative to subconsciously and automatically recall catch-phrases, topic-twisters, incorrect but unverifiable support information and party-approved spins whenever necessary. This also renders the conservative incapable of independent thought. Much like many others in the animal kingdom rely on their instinct, the Conservative relies on this chip to provide the information necessary to live a very comfortable life, completely devoid of questioning." [3]

Observation tainted by the perceived reality of the observer: a form of mysticism. "All forms of mysticism derive from the false premise of the primacy of consciousness, which is demonstratively false." [8]

When a conservative is short-term dominant and not reactive long-term emotional the observing liberal will find that conservative to be cold-hearted, detached and intolerant. Actually that conservative is in control of his or her brain and not the product of environment or mob rule or indoctrination through lies repeated enough to become a perceived reality.

"While the other four senses seem to work fairly well, conservatives have a tremendous amount of trouble with the 'sight' category. It is unknown whether the inability to physically see things in any context other than black and white is a product of their absolutist philosophy or the cause of it, or whether both are the results of faulty programming in the aforementioned "RR" chip. In any case, their view of the world is very different than that of normal human beings, and you must always remember to take this into consideration. Lastly, there's the heart. ...the Conservative heart is clearly three sizes too small. Undoubtedly, this flaw is responsible for the Conservative's inability to ever feel joy, compassion, empathy, or - saddest of all - true love. This is also presumably why the Conservative cannot make friends or appreciate culture, and why they are so sucessful in business. Of course, some research indicates that the Conservative actually is capable of these emotions, but only when directed at inanimate objects, such as money, cars, or the bible. Still other research suggests that the Conservative often shows something resembling joy when in the company of prostitutes, which are certainly not inanimate, especially the good ones. Neither of these studies have produced conclusive results." [3]

It is amazing how many people, when faced with the reality that their method of thinking is not another person's method of thinking, will reject the concept of diversity.

Vicki Haddock, Insight Staff Writer of San Fransisco Gate said: "It had the whiff of parody. Psychologists dissecting the conservative brain? The study starts by assuming that people adopt a belief system such as conservatism partly to satisfy some psychological need. 'This does not mean that conservatism is pathological,' the authors hasten to note, 'or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational or unprincipled.' As Seinfeld might add, 'not that there's anything wrong with that . . . .' The authors also maintain they're not judgmental. Labeling conservatives 'less integratively complex,' isn't precisely the same as saying they're simple-minded. It merely means conservatives aren't compelled to jump through complex, intellectual hoops to justify their relatively black-and-white view of the world." (See conceptual conundrum above.) "One of the researchers' methods involved analyzing political speeches and judicial opinions on the basis of structural complexity. Conservatives thought and spoke more simply -- hence President Bush's observation 'Look, my job isn't to nuance.' But how to explain the polysyllabic, baroque rhetoric of William F. Buckley or George Will? 'They are exceptions,' allows study co-author Jack Glaser. Glaser, an amiable assistant professor at Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy with a Ph.D. in psychology, calls himself a 'relative liberal.'" [5]

Jonah Goldberg, editor of National Review Online said of the UCLA study, "These scientists went off to find negative traits, and when they found what they were looking for they stuck in a pin and said, "Here's a conservative." This is the equivalent of only looking for your car keys where the light is good. In short, they started from a position of cognitive closure. So I guess they were conservatives after all." [4]

The main problem conservatives have is the name they use to describe their political beliefs. Looking up the word 'conservative' will result in a literal meaning of the word 'conserve' applied to a political ideology without relevance of the concept of conservatism. Conservatism is not at all a resistance to change, a desire to remain stuck in the past or as HyperDictionary [10] puts it: resistant to change, conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class; "a bourgeois mentality", unimaginatively conventional; "a colorful character in the buttoned-down, dull-gray world of business"- Newsweek, avoiding excess; "a conservative estimate", opposed to liberal reforms.[10]

Conservatism is the ideology of personal responsibility. Conservatism is the political movement of expecting, anticipating and avoiding unnecessary consequences. Conservatism is the use of the human brain to its evolutionary mechanical ability.

Short-term memory processing runs an exponentially increased pace faster than long-term reactionary processing. To ignore that evolutionary advancement by living through long-term dependent images that are sought to be protected and required to be supported to find self-worth is, to a true conservative, a horrible waste of human evolution.

Every so often, human society moves from a visually dominated to an aurally dominated condition and back. Changing and occurring in 'waves' just like brain functions, society has evolved from one dominance to the next. Traveling through 'time' the changes in human society are marked by either visual (liberal) or aural (conservative) dominance.

Early humans were at first aural in nature with male aural dominance and created innovations of function and concept. We will start this 'time' journey after the human being became self-aware: 9000 BC - 4500 BC, NEOLITHIC : First Permanent Settlements. The Neolithic is traditionally the last part of the stone age.[11] This 'up' 'wave' advanced the species into farming and cultivating and societies for protection and familiarity.


During 3200 BC - 1200 BC, BRONZE AGE : First Pharaos. The earliest hieroglyphs appear at about the beginning of the pharaonic age. [11] This 'down', visually dominant 'wave' stopped true advancement and replaced it with substance through labor. It used the advances of the 'aural' period.

From 1200 BC - 1 BC, IRON AGE : Start of the Trojan War Time of the Judges: Israel is a twelve-tribe confederation. 1175 BC The 'Sea Peoples' were moving out of the Aegean and Anatolian regions.[11] Once again 'aural' conceptual changes take place. This 'up' aurally dominant 'wave' of human society attempts to right wrongs and begins a world conceptual movement to realization.

332 BC - 63 BC, HELLENISTIC PERIOD A regional process of Hellenization begins all over the eastern Mediterranean.[11] This 'down' visually dominant 'wave' of human society falters regionally and overlaps the aurally dominant Iron Age.

30 BC - 476 begins the ROMAN PERIOD The Roman Empire is the term conventionally used to describe the Roman state in the centuries following its reorganization under the leadership of Gaius Julius Caesar.[11] This overlapping aural 'up' 'wave' dominant society created laws and conceptual foundations of leadership.

476 - 1453 MIDDLE AGES The Middle Ages was the middle period in a schematic division of European history into three 'ages': Classical civilization, the Middle Ages, and Modern Civilization. [11] This 'dark time' began the 'wave' of 'down' visual dominance as 'castes' were created to maintain the image of power and retain the ancient 'slave' as a 'serf'.


1350 - 1600 RENAISSANCE "Renaissance," French for "rebirth," perfectly describes the intellectual and economic changes that occurred in Europe from the fourteenth through the sixteenth centuries...[11] People were consumed with appearance, realistic art, interpretive art and color. This 'down' 'wave' of visual dominance resulted in a society protecting the image of itself and led to the Reformation as a slight attempt at 'up' 'wave'. The 'ages' become shorter as the knowledge with which brains are employed becomes more.

1500 - 1600 REFORMATION The Protestant Reformation was a movement which began in the 16th century as a series of attempts to reform the Roman Catholic Church, but ended in division . [11] A shorter time period of 'up' 'wave' aural dominance rejects the visually dominant 'literal' religious edicts.

1600 - 1800 ENLIGHTENMENT Religious Fatigue - It is impossible to overstress the importance of two factors that played heavily in the lives of Westerners by the year 1650.[11] Backfiring, the aurally dominant Reformation gives way to another period of visual dominance in a short 'down' 'wave'.

1750 - 1945 INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION The Industrial Revolution was a period of the 18th century marked by social and technological change in which manufacturing began to rely on steam power, ...[11] Sparked by aurally dominant curiousity to improve and expand without regard for the image of the past this 'up' 'wave' of human society lingers into today and is fading as innovation has become improving. All that is yet to be discovered has not been discovered, but the emergence of the 'visually' dominant scientists of today are keeping 'theories' the focus, while 'laws' are detested as being 'non ambiguous' and "uncertainty avoidance" and the "need for cognitive closure" (ie. answers). All of which should be and until recently were, the primary focus of science. "The twentieth century was remarkable due to the technological, medical, social, ideological, and international innovations," [11] but it came to an abrupt change with the reality of nuclear weapons.

1945 - Present 20TH CENTURY This age began the slow 'down' 'wave' of visual dominance following the visually stimulating horror of nuclear results. Visual started to become interested in protecting what was perceived to be threatened. Visual people started to join together in protest and great things occurred. Racism was no longer tolerated by law (yet it lives in ignorance). Equal rights were admitted as rights in law. Trees were saved. Whales were saved. The environment became interesting and worthy of protection. The television brought it all into the homes of Americans making the image of reality to visual thinkers include things their own experiences could never have provided. No matter what the actual reality may have been, the images of the news, the cartoons of youth, the movies of violence and gore, the realistic appearing special effects and the lies told enough to become accepted norm, permeated the society and the next 'down' 'wave' of visual dominance began. Innovation now comes in the form of different application of existing technology as the next 'cool thing'.

Conservatives continue to seek just that one thing that matters: the concept of consequence. Liberals continue to seek that one thing that matters: their perceived visual reality.


Reality is indeed 'absolute'. It is not, by the very nature of pure logic, dependent on consciousness. Reality is indeed, not subject to wishes, whims, prayers, or miracles. "Consciousness is not responsible for creating reality or creating an individual reality. It is completely dependent upon reality. Existence is primary because it is independent of, makes possible, and is a prerequisite of consciousness." [8]

Liberals are mostly conscious visual thinkers who's perspective curses them with a visual image that unless it is guided or controlled by a dominant short-term memory process, results in an individual reality that is defended at all costs and without regard for consequences not already in the image. It is completely impossible to cause an image to not be that image unless there is an image that already fits it: a comparison, strong enough to replace the image's parts with a 'better fit'. If short-term memory process is not dominant over long-term process those Liberals will suffer from frustration anxiety and fall victim to the acceptance of malaise.

Conservatives are mostly conscious aural thinkers who's realization that reality exists independent of their mere perception of it causes them to worry about consequences. If a short-term memory process is not dominant over the long-term process those Conservatives will suffer from expectation anxiety and fall victim to the malaise of acceptance.

The past's 'waves' of society, trading between liberal visual and conservative aural 'down' and 'up' conditions has reached a point, where not only are they both working equally in American society, but they are fighting for dominance of the country's future.

One, without concern for consequence to a reality not contained within their perspective conscious image and the other consumed by reality found to be real and not a matter of the primacy of consciousness.

At the same time a radical (by today's standards) mob mentality is gaining ground in the world as 'terror' is found to be a tool of destruction for the explicit and simple goal of causing societies of the world to ignore the Industrial Revolution, the Enlightenment, the Reformation and the Renaissance and return to a time when visual dominance was prime and rulers ruled over cowering believers who dare not question the word of someone they were not worthy of meeting let alone questioning.

The issue for today is whether such reversal of societal evolution can be permitted to exist when its time should have made it extinct long ago.

Each form of mental sensory dominance has its chance, through the evolution of society. To permit an intruder such as that which uses terror, is to stop the progress of the human species. To dare to afford a single supportive comment or act, to use the evil of terror as a political tool, to divert attention for personal gain, to make statements and claims that support one's personal perceptive reality without regard to overall consequence, stands to be the downfall of yet another individual society.


But that, would be a consequence.

Fear, Anxiety and Depression

Imagine you are a manager in a company where the workers just do what they want.

No matter what you do, the workers do what they want to do. Some workers refuse to pay attention to your repeated requests for order; others ignore your pleas for productivity as you watch your division or company disintegrate before your very eyes.

While trying to assemble a team you realize you are the only one watching it all, while others are simply doing what they want, without regard for the 'big picture'.

Imagine how frustrating that could be.

Welcome to anxiety.

It works the same way in your head.

You are your short-term memory process. The workers represent your long-term memory process. You watch long-term output things you do not expect and do not like and the result is anxiety or depression as 'you' are aware of 'you' but you are not aware of 'them'. 'Them' is really 'then'. 'You' is really 'now'.

Just about all problems dealing in mental concerns are a combination of 'then' and 'now'. If 'then' is more in control of 'now' then 'now' is, 'then' will do what it does without 'now' being aware of it and the result is 'now' has no control.

If you have a specific worker who appears to be more intense than the others, you may begin to get the 'feeling' that worker is dangerous and you could start to have concerns of that worker's potential outbursts or destroyed output.

Welcome to fear.


Fear is the combination of an expectation and an expected outcome that do not match.

If the expected outcome is based in a known experience that expected outcome could reach the point where it has a greater value than 'you' will accept and that results in a lack of knowledge. That lack of knowledge is fear.

How do 'you' deal with fear?

You replace it with knowledge that 'then' is not 'now'.

The process of replacing the lack of 'then' knowledge with 'now' knowledge has results that, if performed incorrectly will make you have even more fear, or if accomplished in the opposite, will cause you to find fear normal, which is just as bad.

Enter psychology.

Psychology deals with what causes mental problems based on what those mental problems are, not on what causes them.

That leads to theories of 'mind' and 'fear' and 'anxiety' that are not theories of any cause, but rather, theories of results. It is like treating symptoms with a bandaid while allowing the cause to continue, just as long as the patient is not aware of it.

Enter psychologist David H. Barlow.

Barlow is taking the opposite approach to fear and anxiety of what psychology tries to do.

It is commendable that an alternative treatment process is possible, but two wrongs never make a right.

In most standard psychological treatments of anxiety and fear, both are replaced (Band-Aid) with opposite emotions. Emotions are results, which can become the cause of another emotion, but never the cause of the initial emotion.


Barlow's approach is to give the patient more of what ails them.

That would be like killing a parent's child while they were at work: to cure them of the fear their child might be harmed, since they are working.

Neither approach to treatment of anxiety nor fear addresses the causes of them.

Both are caused by a lack of control of short-term process.

In that lack of control, short-term process simply watches the disasters take place and worries about them.

In Barlow's technique, short-term process is forced to accept the anxiety and fear as normal. In other techniques, short-term process is forced to ignore the anxiety and fear as normal.

Both techniques are Band-Aids. Fear and anxiety continues in long-term memory processing while the short-term aware process is either trained to allow it to happen or trained to help it happen.

In "The Cruelest Cure By Lauren Slater of the New York Times" published 2, November, 2003 [ref] Barlow's techniques are put forth:

"He aims to reduce anxiety not by teaching customary relaxation techniques involving calming mantras or soothing imagery, but by doing just the opposite: forcing the patient to repeatedly face his most dreaded situation, so that, eventually, he becomes accustomed to the sensation of terror." [ref]

Relaxation techniques ignore the problem by attempting to replace them with ignoring everything.


Barlow's technique ignores the problem by attempting to replace it with making it normal.

Both techniques are useless long-term solutions, as both techniques allow long-term memory to retain control over the patient and in both techniques, long-term memory is all that is addressed.

Barlow, according to Slater, calls his technique, 'Inoculation'. [ref]

That is not at all what it is. It is actually, almost, the right thing to do, but it is being done in the wrong way.

Barlow's 'inoculation' retains the long-term control of the patient and forces the patient to realize that what they fear is not really as bad as their fear would have them believe. And that is a good thing. But experiencing it is not necessary. Giving it relevance to 'now', is.

What is a bad thing is that the long-term dependency process ignores the short-term process. So the next time a situation arises that should indeed be feared the long-term process, then convinced that experiencing what caused a previous fear will solve that fear, would take that approach and it could result in serious injury.

Luckily our long-term memory process happens without our awareness of it. If it happened with our awareness of it, we would be aware of every little thing we do, including having to consciously decide which key to peck at when typing, which direction to look at when driving, when to breath, when to pump blood and when to do everything we expect to be done on its own.

Human short-term memory process adds a degree of control that is remembered in long-term. By simply allowing short-term to watch long-term happen and do nothing to control it, we are aware of the inability to control but not what causes the controlling (long-term).

"Christopher McCullough, a professor at the Professional School of Psychology in Sacramento and a therapist in private practice, says that methods like Barlow's are ''all surface'' and ''teach the patient nothing about why they're anxious, about what the anxiety might mean.''" [ref]

Actually, there is NO MEANING in anxiety. It is the LACK of meaning in short-term that causes anxiety. Every therapy approach of psychology is ''all surface''. By seeking meaning to a long-term process all the therapists is doing is supporting long-term process and totally ignoring short-term control.

Relevance to a human is what is 'now'. 'Now' is the short-term process. 'Then' is the memory of past input and past results. If left to its own, long-term will force the person to repeat everything they have ever done, over and over again. Short-term allows the person to stop that forced repetition and place relevance to 'now' into past memories, which places those memories in the time relevance where they were 'now'. Engaging short-term memory process separates the patient from the patient's past and allows the patient to control the patient's future, instead of the past doing all the control.

Barlow's technique instills a greater dependency on the past. McCullough's 'meaning' places a greater dependency on the past.

To solve anxiety and fear, place a greater dependency on the 'now' and the past will no longer be in control.


Writing in the article, in reference to Barlow's process, Slater says, "I, however, am not convinced. After all, depression is precisely a problem of meaninglessness, whereas anxiety, one might say, is a problem of excess meaning."

Anxiety is a problem of excess lack of meaning. Depression is a problem of excess meaning. It is backwards.


Imagine a hole.


Looking at the hole one will see nothing in the space where something should be. Look at it once and it will be a hole. Look at it continuously and it will be a lack of something.

A lack of something is nothing but a hole in memory. Short-term memory processing stares at that lack of something and accepts it as not knowing. Long-term memory processing is the function attempting to process the lack of something and in doing so causes anything connecting to it, to result in a partial lack of something. That is depression: the excess meaning of the lack of something.

Anxiety is when the same hole takes on a meaning of its own, rendering the inputs being compared with it, a lack of meaning.

The solution to both is the same: give short-term processing a greater meaning for 'now'. Both will then be considered 'then' and in doing so, will output less control and calm down short-term's curiosity of why it cannot control them.


Imagine being that manager again.


The only reason a manager does not manage is that the manager does not realize they are the manager.

To realize is to know that one knows.

That is what awareness is: to know that you know.

Imagine a company where the manager knows they are the manager and the workers will know it as well. Workers may not like it, but the manager, actually managing, will control that reaction, just as the manager will control the proaction they are responsible for.

To learn how depression and anxiety actually work in the brain, read "The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing" available free from


Bigotry Assumptions

Assumptions can be made that are based in assumptions.

"Brain scan 'identifies race bias among white people'" [ref] is the headline. How absurd is it?

"A brain scan that can apparently root out racists has been developed by scientists." [ref] No it has not.

"The technique was used on white volunteers shown photographs of black individuals." [ref] But not on any other race shown photographs of any other race. Not only is the research biased but there was no control group. In fact, there rarely is a control group in fMRI scan studies. It is assumed that fMRI scans are accurate. No they are not.

"In those with racist tendencies, a surge of activity was seen in part of the brain that controls thoughts and behaviour. Scientists believe this reflected volunteers' attempts to curb their latent racism." [ref] There is NO such thing. The entire brain is involved in thought and behavior. Phrenology makes its mark once again with fMRI brain scans. Assuming a physical location for a specific task is assuming the brain is as inefficient as the use of it by such scientists.

"After interacting with real black individuals, the same group performed poorly in a task designed to test mental resources." [ref] And this was meant to do what? To show that interacting with 'blacks' reduces white's intellect? What was the motive of the study? Obviously it was to foster a method of thinking regarding racial bias, from a group of scientists already harboring their own.


"The American researchers concluded that harboring racial prejudice, even unintentionally, stirred up an inner struggle that exhausted the brain." [ref] Which is totally absurd. Racial prejudice is a result of lack of knowledge of the facts and the lack of personal responsibility by the subject, where another outside cause must be attributed to their own misgivings.

"Dr Jennifer Richeson, assistant professor of psychological and brain sciences at Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, said: 'We were surprised to find brain activity in response to faces of black individuals predicted how research participants performed on cognitive tasks after actual interracial interactions.' [ref] No they were not, or they would not have set up the test with whites observing blacks, and no control group.

"The scientists first measured the racial bias of 30 white individuals using a standard technique." No they did not. There is no 'standard technique' that shows racial bias. There are only techniques that show responses, assumed by the researcher to be racial bias.

"Volunteers were given a computer test to record the ease with which they associated with white and black racial groups with concepts that were positive or negative. Those with higher levels of racial bias took longer to associate white people with negative concepts and black people with positive concepts." [ref] And that had nothing to do with the simple fact that those with racial bias do not associate with the race they have bias against and are therefore needing to search for relevance.

"The study participants were then asked to interact with either a white or a black individual. Afterwards, they underwent a test which involved making a mental effort to inhibit instinctive responses." [ref] How absurd. There are no 'instinctive responses'.

"The scan experiment employed a technique called functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to map brain activity." [ref] fMRI shows blood levels in areas of the brain. It does not show what the brain is doing to cause more blood. It does not show how the brain is doing anything. It also, does not give a researcher any chance whatsoever to assume the result of watching more blood means anything other than activity. Just because some people have more activity than others does not mean they are biased. It means they have less relevance. Seeking a response to compare to takes longer, and therefore more activity than familiar searches require.

The study is a prime example of stupid science, performed by ignorant scientists with predisposed desires they seek to fulfill. It shows once again that fMRI is not only NOT a valid research tool for neuroscience, but it is a dangerous toy that ignores process, ignores system and permits ignorance to continue to assert itself.

Dr Jennifer Richeson responded to this press release with this statement: "...i want to assure you that we don't believe that bran scans can or should "identify racial bias." in fact, we are working to get this article removed from all outlets, as it is a complete misrepresentation of our work."

That response is commendable, but nevertheless shows the main problems with fMRI brain scan studies. The news media believes they represent fact. They represent watching blood flow and that is all. The response, as commendable as it is, still does not address the methods used in the study as reported by Ananova and the bias of researcher assumptions based on fMRI results.


Prions, Synapses and Bad Science

"By tinkering with yeast and sea slugs, scientists have found a surprising possible explanation for the way the human brain stores long-term memories." No they have not!

In yet another enormous blunder, Sandra Blakeslee of The New York Times has reported a prime example of an assumption based upon a fallacy.

In the article "Research With Sea Slugs and Yeast May Explain How Long-Term Memories Are Stored" [ref] Blakeslee quotes "Dr. Eric R. Kandel, a neuroscientist at Columbia University who shared the 2000 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his research on memory formation" [ref].

"With experience and learning, new synapses are formed and others are strengthened, Dr. Kandel said. Indeed, the mechanisms explaining the way short- and long-term memories are formed have largely been worked out. But the questions of how long-term memories are actually stored and what keeps synapses from losing their connectivity under the onslaught of constant cellular remodeling are outstanding mysteries in biology." [ref]

Neuroscience is captivated by the notion of plasticity.

They can see it. What they cannot see is what happens in the neuron and what a synapse actually is.

From the misconception that the synapse is much more than it actually is and in total ignorance of the neuron's place in mental processing research into the chemistry of synapses has provided laughable assumptions.


"To find out if a new kind of prion is what enables memories to be stored, researchers have begun new experiments on flies and mice." [ref]

The actual work of the brain takes place in the neuron. The synapse is the transmittal of one function to the next. Research has centered on the synapse as the location where drugs affect mental conditions and in extending that concept these researchers have concluded that the synapse is the entire point of where memory is stored.

Memory is not stored. It is fluid: constantly moving deeper into the past. Synapses act as the brain's traffic cops keeping the signals heading in the correct direction without backfiring and corrupting the previous neuron's function.

By concentrating on the synapse bad science continues and gullible reporters report.

If this concentration continues Blakeslee will undoubtedly be reporting the storage of memory in synapses as a fact. It is a lie.

Neuroscience is based in visual observation of systematic functions that are not visible through observation of the external transmission of function results.

Blakeslee's article and Kandel's research are science fiction in the worst way.


Unwanted Memories, Unreliable Research

Before researchers start declaring new findings it might help to know anything at all about human memory.

In a press release from Stanford University: "For the first time, researchers at Stanford University and the University of Oregon have shown that a biological mechanism exists in the human brain to block unwanted memories." [ref]

"Twenty-four people, aged 19 to 31, volunteered for the experiment. Participants were given 36 pairs of unrelated nouns, such as "ordeal-roach," "steam-train" and "jaw-gum," and asked to remember them at 5-second intervals." [ref]

Unrelated? A roach can be an ordeal. A train can be steam. A jaw chews gum. Each pair has a dominant word. The dominant word relates to many other words while the secondary word relates to many other words.

"The subjects were tested on memorizing the word pairs until they got about three-quarters of them right..." [ref]

This placed the words into long-term memory. *Three quarters of them? So one quarter of all results do not exist?

"'The big news is that we've shown how the human brain blocks an unwanted memory, that there is such a mechanism and it has a biological basis,' said Stanford psychology Professor John Gabrieli, a co-author of the paper titled 'Neural Systems Underlying the Suppression of Unwanted Memories.'" [ref]

No, they have not. They have shown how the human brain works in two layers of memory. "Michael Anderson, a psychology professor at the University of Oregon and the paper's lead author, conducted the experiment with Gabrieli and other researchers during a sabbatical at Stanford last year." [ref]

"Anderson first revealed the existence of such a suppression mechanism in the brain in a 2001 paper published in Nature titled 'Suppressing Unwanted Memories by Executive Control.' He took the research a step further at Stanford by using brain imaging scans to identify the neural systems involved in actively suppressing memory. The core findings showed that controlling unwanted memories was associated with increased activation of the left and right frontal cortex (the part of the brain used to repress memory), which in turn led to reduced activation of the hippocampus (the part of the brain used to remember experiences). In addition, the researchers found that the more subjects activated their frontal cortex during the experiment, the better they were at suppressing unwanted memories." [ref]

The frontal cortex is the home of short-term memory in humans. It is not a suppressing area. It is a higher and faster level of memory processing that gives rise to awareness and consciousness. The hippocampus is the processing area for long-term memory so it could be said to 'remember experiences', but it is actually simply processing prior input sent from short-term to long-term in relation to input. The more a person engages short-term processing the less influence long-term memory has on that person.

It is not a process of repressing memories. It is a process of not being controlled by long-term memories.


"The researchers randomly divided the 36 word pairs into three sets of 12. In the first set, volunteers were asked to look at the first word in the pair (presented by itself) and recall and think about the second word. In the second set, volunteers were asked to look at the first word of the pair and not recall or think of the second word. The third set of 12 word pairs served as a baseline and was not used during the brain scanning part of the experiment. The subjects were given four seconds to look at the first word of each pair 16 times during a 30-minute period." [ref]

So let us look at the examples provided in the press release and extend some potential, normal comparisons.


Word Pair First Word Compares To Second Word Compares To


ordeal TRIAL






visitation roach insect







steam-train steam vapor






engine train car







jaw-gum jaw chin






back-talk gum chewing








Words do not enter the brain without comparison to words that have entered the brain before. Using word pairs to place into long-term memory, then evaluating their recall using short-term memory proves absolutely nothing but the difference between long and short-term memory processing: something the researchers did not and would not have considered.

What the researchers have shown is that the more a word is placed into memory, the more it connects to words it has connected to before and the less it connects to the first word it was connected to in the experiment. The experiment was flawed.

Brain memory is not like computer memory. For brain memory to remain 'recallable' it must connect to previous memory. A computer memory is placed in storage until returned for use. Any experiment that uses past memory is tainted by every connected ever made to that past memory.

"After the scanning finished, the subjects were retested on all 36 word pairs. The researchers found that the participants remembered fewer of the word pairs they had actively tried to not think of than the baseline pairs, even though they had not been exposed to the baseline group for a half-hour. " [ref]

The participants did not 'remember' the word pairs as the comparison words had been replaced in their memory with words that were relatable to the 'placed' words, therefore could not be provided accurately. The brain works by comparing similars in both long and short-term memory processes. By placing word pairs into long-term memory, concentrating on one of the words to 'forget' the memory process continued by supporting the 'forget' word in relation to other words that matched it, which were remembered, uses the brain's process not the assumptions and desires of researchers.

"'Anderson likened the brain's ability to control memory to an individual's reflexive ability to halt an unwanted action. For example, Anderson recalled once standing at an open window and noticing a potted plant starting to fall. He quickly tried to catch the plant until he realized it was a cactus that could have injured him. "'Our ability to stop action is so ubiquitous we don't know we're doing it,'" Anderson said. "This idea is that the neurobiological mechanism that we have evolved to control overt behavior might be recruited to control internal actions such as memory retrieval as well.'" [ref]

There it is. 'Anderson likened'. He compared a sub-field of interest to him in the brain in general, to a reflexive long-term motion motivation without knowing that short-term memory was overcome by a higher degree of long-term memory processing that stopped the cactus from impaling him. The same process was going on in the experiment, he just doesn't know what that process is. The more long-term dependent a person is, the less short-term aware the person is. It is the problem causing most of today's 'conditions': everything from violence in schools to law suits for additive cable television obesity.

The process observed is the difference between short-term and long-term memory processing in humans. It is NOT a 'mechanism' for repressing memories. It is the system that makes us human and in doing so gives us two options, one for each layer of memory: we can either live in long-term and suffer the depressive results of reacting to everything we do in life (and depending upon previous assumptions) or we can live in short-term and suffer no consequence of the past as it is not the present.

Once again, a research project assumes why, without knowing how and imposes a presupposed assumption on a bad experiment, to show credibility for a flawed theorum.

The study assumes all persons partaking think the same way. Without awareness of which subjects are conscious visual and which are conscious aural thinkers the study is further flawed.


"Anderson said the findings about the brain's ability to suppress memory could be used as a tool to better understand addiction and the ability of people to suppress unwanted thoughts related to craving. It might also help provide a model to assess individuals at risk from suffering post-traumatic stress disorder, he said." [ref]

It can be used as experience to realize bad science leads to bad science and no amount of 'may's and 'could's will make it right. Those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and all other conditions of mental processing can indeed benefit from knowledge. But it has to be real knowledge. Not incorrect assumptions.

"Research reveals brain has biological mechanism to block unwanted memories:" [ref]

No, it doesn't. But it does have a nice system to make it look that way to those who wish it were true.


Ridiculous Assumptions, Unreliable Research, Short-Term Memory in Rats?

Before researchers start declaring new findings it might help to know anything at all about human memory. Part 2

Just such a news story was found in "Two Brain Areas Critical for Short-term Memory" from Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, published at [ref]

"Research in animals has revealed that there may be two different areas of the brain that share the function of storing and remembering events for short-term memory..."

This is where ignorance stands guard over discovery.

The "lead researcher", Sam Deadwyler, Ph.D., makes matters worse when he proclaims, "These new findings broaden our understanding of how memory works."

No it does not. It just supports the ignorance with conclusions based upon ignorance.

Robert Hampson, Ph.D., and Deadwyler report the hippicampus "shares this function with another adjacent brain area, the subiculum."

From an incorrect assumption based in ignorance can only come an incorrect conclusion resulting in further ignorance.

"Surprisingly, we found that the shortest memories were controlled almost exclusively by the subiculum, which is exactly opposite from what was previously believed," said Deadwyler. "For the first 10 to 15 seconds of the task used to examine this in rats, we found that the memory function of the hippocampus actually shuts off."


By misinterpreting the 'age' of a memory with being 'short-term ' or 'long-term' both Hampson and Deadwyler proclaim the ignorance of not knowing what memory is at all.

What they monitored was input of sensory perception versus comparison to long-term memory. Rats do not have short-term memory. The lag in the 'turning on' of the hippocampus is not the presence of an 'off' condition. It is the lack of a relatable long-term memory from which the hippocampus can process.

How they arrived at erroneous conclusions is most interesting.

"For the memory task, rats were randomly presented either a "right" of "left" lever. With food as an incentive, the rat pressed the lever and then had to perform another behavior on the opposite side of the cage for 1 second to 30 seconds as a distraction. When the animal returned after the delay, both the "right" and "left" levers were showing. To get the task correct, the rat now had to press the lever opposite from the one selected at the beginning of the trial.

Electrode recordings of cell activity in both brain areas unexpectedly showed that when the imposed delay was less than 15 seconds, only the subiculum recorded the information. But, when the delay was longer, the subiculum became inactive while the hippocampus switched on and took over control of the memory requirements of the task."

By imposing an 'opposite' (i.e; a process not in memory at all) the researchers set up the results of their study.


Of course the hippocampus was not functional upon return to the levers. It had nothing in long-term memory (the only memory a rat has) to draw from, to compare with, to determine action from. So it appeared to be 'off'.

A rat's brain function runs about one quarter the speed of human long-term memory function. About 15:1 instead of 60:1 per second versus input stimuli. The researchers watched the difference in processing from the subiculum to the hippocampus and deduced it must mean they are functioning separately. Neither function 'records' anything.

What appeared to be 'active' was reactive, while what appeared to be 'switched on' was contemplative: in that drawing from memory for reaction was showing more control from previous memory than from input alone.

"The research also revealed another important finding about the hippocampus. When it switched on to complete the trial, the memory was biased by past experience. This strategy allowed the hippocampus to anticipate future events based on past outcomes."

Well duh! The hippocampus was not 'switched on' it had found a string of past long-term memory from which to process the input and that was a combination of input and long-term, therefore the assumptive ignorance: 'biased by past experience'.

A rat performing functions instantly is not drawing from memory but rather from input stimuli high enough in value to cause motion on its own. If that input stimuli is not high enough to cause motion on its own, it is compared to long-term memory with the resulting motion, if any, being 'biased' by long-term memory.


"With the rat trials, the hippocampus did not start from scratch. Because of this strategy in some cases it would "expect" the trials to alternate "left," then "right," and fired cells to remember the alternate lever even before the trial began.

"When the hippocampus relies on previous experience, and doesn't use current events, the rat can get the task wrong because the anticipatory firing is actually controlling the animal's behavior," said Hampson."

The reason the hippocampus was observed to 'expect' is its function is running faster than the input coming to it. 15:1 faster. Output needs only be 'seeded' to cause a stream of anticipatory reaction to stimuli.

Hampson is right in that reactive long-term memory left to its own, which a rat has no choice in, will result in repetition regardless if the act is 'correct' in the moment.

"In humans, this is similar to someone who takes the same highway exit each day to get to work. He may end up taking that route even when he's not supposed to - such as on a day he needed to go to the dentist before work."

The difference is short-term memory.

A rat has no choice or ability to override a memory induced reaction. A human does. Human short-term memory feeds motion just as long-term memory does and it can override long-term reactionary motion. The problem with today's emotional basket cases relys mostly on the lack of short-term control over long-term reactionary motion.

Rats do not have the luxury to throw away.


Rats do not have short-term memory, at all.

"When this happens, you're using a behavioral pattern that is remembered by your hippocampus," said Deadwyler. "When you get in your car in the morning, you trigger that pattern and your hippocampus then takes over. Based on familiar landmarks, it then guides you toward your destination. But, you're acting in accordance with what your 'memory' is telling you instead of what is actually going on in the real world around you, and you miss the turn." [ref]

Deadwyler is dead wrong.

The hippocampus does not 'remember' anything. It processes memories. The hippocampus does not 'take over'. It processes memories. You miss your turn as your human short-term memory is not in control of your long-term memory and you may as well be a rat.

"The research was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health (National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Institute of Mental Health)."

How nice of them. And they wound up with a staged test, resulting in a predictable outcome and absolutely no advance in understanding anything based on the initial incorrect assumptions.

"The researchers hope to continue the work to learn more about how the hippocampus and subiculum work together with other brain regions to establish more permanent memories."

Save yourself the time and the people's money. Read 'The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing' and learn something of how memory works, what it is and why such ridiculous wastes of money in useless studies continues.


Neurons Are Marvelous Things

A heartfelt thank you is extended to researchers from USC (Viterbi School of Engineering, BME - Center for Vision Science and Technology) and the Technion Medical School in Israel for their study published in the Journal Nature regarding neuron function.

Sincere "thank you's" are extended to Bartlett W. Mel Associate Professor, USC Viterbi School of Engineering, BME - Center for Vision Science and Technology, from "Haifa, Israel, Alon Polsky, lead author of the paper and graduate student at Technion, and Jackie Schiller, contributing author and co-principal investigator." [ref1]

"Their findings - appearing in this month's issue of the journal Nature Neuroscience - contradict a widely accepted idea regarding the "arithmetic" neurons use to process information." [ref1]

"The data showed that three different scenarios could occur when two electrodes A and B were used to stimulate the same dendritic branch:" [ref1]


">>> If the total response to the two inputs (electrodes A and B) falls below the branch's local firing threshold, the summation looks linear - A plus B." [ref1]


">>> If the two inputs are just strong enough that together they cross the local threshold, the summation looks superlinear - more than A plus B. " [ref1]


">>> If each individual input is strong enough to cross the local threshold by itself, the summation is sublinear - less than A plus B." [ref1]


"Mel explained the last point in this way: "If two people are trying to build a fire together and they each have a match, the fire isn't going burn twice as bright or twice as hot thanks to the second match, once it's already been started with the first. The second match is irrelevant."" [ref1]

"In contrast to summation of inputs delivered to the same branch, the researchers found that summation of inputs on different dendritic branches always looked linear - like lighting two separate fires." [ref1]

"The findings support a 2003 modeling study carried out in Mel's lab, in which he and graduate student Panayiota Poirazi predicted that pyramidal neurons would behave in this way. This was the first experimental test of those predictions." [ref1]

Their findings are not only different than accepted beliefs of neuroscience, they are slightly misguided but only in comparisons used to make their deductions. The end result is the same.

The same process they were witnessing is modeled in the Institute's publication site EnticyPress. The neuron model at that site is what these researches have been studying. The equation for neuron function in the book, The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing, is the equation they have been seeking.

The way neurons process data is what the Enticy Institute has been saying for a long time. It is nice to see the proof.



Vindication! The Biological Clock

Yet another research study, unknowingly shows 'The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing' to know more than it looks by its cover.

A heartfelt thank you to Horacio de la Iglesia of the University of Washington in Seattle and his colleagues reporting in the Journal Nature regarding the suprachiasmatic nucleus (the biological clock).

"Our brains contain more than one biological clock, US researchers have shown. They believe that problems such as jet lag are caused when two of the clocks become out of step with each other."[ref1]

Although the research team has a long way to go in determining that timing is synchronized and therefore from a central clock, not independent clocks, they are on the right track in showing that the process of biological clock master clock division rates and distributed variance of clock speeds as quoted in the book, The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing: are indeed able to be shown in the laboratory.

Quoted in Nature: "And the signal from the brain clocks to the organs in the body, which have their own clock cells, is also mysterious. 'We do not know what pulls these clocks together,' says Russell Foster, a neuroscientist at Imperial College London." [ref1]

What are being called 'clock cells' are like reactive cells fed from the suprachiasmatic nucleus. They are not individual independent clocks. The above mentioned book details how it works.

The EnticyPress site of the Institute provides a visual animation of the clocking process at work under the 'Memory' link. (note: this site content has been removed from access)


The independent biological clock shown in the report data is what the Enticy Institute has been saying for a long time. It is nice to see the proof.


Thalamus in Control

If the deductions were not so wrong the news would be great.

A prime example of misinterpretation based on biased assumptions in: "Severe Depression Linked to Greater Number of Nerve Cells in Thalamus"

From The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, the study of: "postmortem brains of patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD) showed a 31 percent greater than average number of nerve cells in the portion of the thalamus involved with emotional regulation." [ref1]

Different parts of the brain have been assigned different tasks and functions based upon observational deductions of relevant reference actions. This is no different than noticing the road in front of your house seems to be the 'food distribution center' as it constantly is crossed by grocery trucks.

The Thalamus is the center of long-term memory. It isn't very large, compared to short-term memory and it does not have to be. It is functioning far slower and therefore takes up less room. Neurons are made as neurons are needed to extend the pathway of a specific input receptor. When a person is long-term dominant (controlled by past more than present) more neurons will be present as the area of long-term memory is being used more often and receiving higher signals, which makes neuron creation more plentiful.

"Researchers also discovered that this portion of the thalamus is physically larger than normal in people with MDD. Located in the center of the brain, the thalamus is involved with many different brain functions, including relaying information from other parts of the brain to the cerebral cortex." [ref1]

The cerebral cortex is where short-term memory is. It is far larger as it is working far faster. The thalamus does not 'relay' anything. It sends its fluid data (long-term memories) to short-term memory to be evaluated and returned to long-term memory (which is how you remember you have a sense of self.)

Enter the learned scientists: "Dr. Dwight German, professor of psychiatry at UT Southwestern," said "This supports the hypothesis that structural abnormalities in the brain are responsible for depression". Whoa there cowboy. Back up. Reverse that. Depression is responsible for structural abnormalities. Depressed people are living in their memory, over and over again and are doing so as short-term memory is not in control therefore sending signals that are far too large for long-term memory to maintain at a 'normal' size. The hypothesis of 'size is the cause' is not only wrong, it is severly wrong.

German continued: "Often people don't understand why mentally ill people behave in odd ways. They may think they have a weak will or were brought up in some unusual way. But if their brains are different, they're going to behave differently. Depression is an emotional disorder. So it makes sense that the part of the brain that is involved in emotional regulation is physically different." [ref1]

No it does not. It makes sense that the part of the brain involved in emotional reactions, (if emotions were regulated at all, there would be no depression) would be overworked as the part of the brain involved in rational pro-actions is simply not in control of the process.

German digs deeper: "The thalamus is often referred to as the secretary of the cerebral cortex - the part of the brain that controls all kinds of important functions such as seeing, talking, moving, thinking and memory. Most everything that goes into the cortex has to go through the thalamus first." [ref1]

Should have held on to the reigns a couple of paragraphs ago: the connection between cortex and thalamus is one of information exchange. Receptor inputs are compared to thalamus content, the result is transmitted (not relayed) to the cortex where it has a myriad array of options for activity. The data can simply be transferred back to the thalamus and stored without reference to 'now' or it can, in varying degrees of 'now' be tempered with 'now'. Depressed people are not living in 'now'. 'Then' is always the cause of expected 'future' events and 'now' is only the condition of 'when' not 'what' to a severely depressed person.

The functions listed, "seeing, talking, moving, thinking and memory" are, for the most part, long-term functions. One does not 'contemplate to see, or talk or move or retrieve memory'. Thinking is completely different than German could cope with at this point, so we'll leave that to another useless scientific study to defend.

German continued: "The thalamus also contains cells that are not involved with emotion. Our studies found these portions of the thalamus to be perfectly normal. But the ones that are involved in emotion are the ones that were abnormal." [ref]


Might there be just a small, very insignificant chance that long-term memory stores both visual and aural pathways, and smell and taste and pressure and temperature and texture? Of course there is. The areas of the thalamus not affected by overworked pathways are the ones that will not have the extra cell count.

In the press release provided by the University [ref1] a rather silly deduction is attempted: "Researchers also looked at the effect of antidepressant medications on the number of nerve cells and found no significant difference among any of the subject groups - whether they had taken antidepressants or not - reinforcing the belief that abnormalities in brain development are responsible for depression." [ref1]

Now that is indeed downright silly. Anti-depressants do not work on neurons, they work on synapses. People do not start taking anti-depressants until the depression becomes noticable and oft' times not until the depression has set in enough to cause an overgrowth of pathway processing (whether it is visual or aural pathways). By then, the thalamus has extended out for long-term memory values that are in excess of 'normal. Anti-depressants just dampen the transmission of synapse function. They do absolutely nothing to the values stored in the memory before their use. In fact, the values that are 'depressed' or 'increased' themselves do not match the values that are present in long-term memory, so when the patient withdraws from the medication, relapse may occur in varying degrees of angry intensity.

"Major depression is characterized by a depressed mood and lack of interest or pleasure in normal activities for a prolonged period of time, while bipolar disease is distinguished by alternating periods of extreme mania or elevated mood swings, and severe depression. Schizophrenia often results in psychotic episodes of hallucinations and delusions and a lack of perception of reality." [ref1]

All are symptoms of the same condition. Long-term memory is in control of the brain, as short-term memory is not in control of the brain. Having nice clinical terms for observed conditions has turned into observed conditions determining their own causes by size, location or the flavor of the month club tool (fMRI is hot this month we hear!)

"Other researchers involved in the study were Dr. Umar Yazdani, a postdoctoral researcher in psychiatry from UT Southwestern, and Drs. Keith A. Young, Leigh A. Holcomb and Paul B. Hicks from Central Texas Veterans Health Care System, Texas AM University System Health Science Center and Scott & White Hospital in Temple." [ref1]

"The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health; the Veterans Administration; the Scott, Sherwood and Brindley Foundation, and the Theodore and Vada Stanley Foundation." [ref1]

It is nice to know that the functions depicted in the book, The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing have once again found evidence of truth in a clinical study. It is sad that the state of the science today is such that deductions are made based on observations without one shred of logic evaluating what is being observed, just that is it observed.

It is a shame the "National Institutes of Health; the Veterans Administration; the Scott, Sherwood and Brindley Foundation, and the Theodore and Vada Stanley Foundation," have spent money to do a great thing and wound up with fictional assumptions to press forward with and ruin more studies.


Gray Matter Matters fMRI Strikes Again

More and more recently, a deduction is made by observation that ignores what causes the observable. A case in point is the hilarious 'bigger is better' concept of "Grey matter matters for intellect".

Think for a second. What IS gray matter? Oh, you don't know? But it has something to do with intellect? Gray matter is short term memory.

Think for another second. What causes gray matter to increase in size? Oh, you don't know? But it has something to do with intellect? Gray matter is short term memory. The more use there is of it the more "gray matter" is required to hold it.

Think just for one more second. How could size be interpreted for causation? Really. Think about that. How could the size of anything be in anyway determinant to why it is larger?

A crowd is a crowd because it is larger than a group. A group is a group because it is larger than a couple. A couple is a couple because it is larger than one person. Then how could a crowd be larger because it is larger? A crowd is the whole created by its parts. It is not larger than the sum of its parts. It IS the sum of its parts. Gray matter is the sum of its parts. It is only larger if there are more parts. What causes those parts is the point. Not the size of the result.

But let us not let logic interfere with "Grey matter matters for intellect".

"Intelligence linked to size of key brain regions." : "Size may matter after all, when it comes to IQ. A brain imaging study suggests that human intellect is based on the volume of grey matter in certain brain regions, challenging alternative views about the basis of intelligence. Researchers have been trying to pinpoint the biological roots of intelligence for decades. More than 25 years ago, a weak correlation was found between IQ and overall brain size. Others have suggested that level of intelligence is due to the size of the frontal lobe." [ref]

How much potential would there be to this literally ignorant assumption, that its source might involve an fMRI observation?

"Richard Haier from the University of California, Irvine, and colleagues used magnetic resonance imaging to measure the amount of grey matter in the brains of 47 adults, who also took standard IQ tests."

A larger quote to reach the end in context: "The researchers divided the brain into sections and imaged the amount of grey matter in each one. Grey matter is a diffuse network of brain regions thought to be involved in information processing. It is rich in nerve cell bodies and looks grey to the naked eye. They found that people with high IQ scores had significantly more grey matter in 24 of the regions than people with lower scores. Many of the areas, which are spread throughout the brain, are known to be related to memory, attention and language. Their results are reported online in Neuroimage1. Haier believes that different aspects of intelligence might depend on the amount of grey matter in these different brain regions. "This may be why one person is quite good at mathematics and not so good at spelling, and another person, with the same IQ, has the opposite pattern of abilities," he says. However, Haier and his colleagues also found that only about 6% of the total grey matter in the brain seems to be related to IQ. Nerve cells in these particular areas may work to allow the brain to process information more efficiently, suggests Haier. 'There is a constant cascade of information being processed in the entire brain, but intelligence seems related to an efficient use of relatively few structures, where the more grey matter the better,' he says."


There we are.


If the difference between high intellect and low intellect in anyway involves a difference in efficiency how could the brain be efficient in the first place? Is the brain dependent upon its own observation to determine its causality? Of course not.

What is efficiency? According to Merriam Webster: Efficiency is "the ratio of the useful energy delivered by a dynamic system to the energy supplied to it". Excuse me? Do really smart people have hotter brains? If 'efficiency' is being used in the reference to denote IQ as being the result of more output for less function, then a larger gray matter would not be indicative of higher IQ it would be indicative of LOWER IQ. If 'efficiency' is being used as denoting use of energy are people who have higher IQ's happier, better adjusted, more tolerant, somehow better people? Of course not (as much as the researchers apparently wish it were true.)

In the official press release for the study, Haier expounded: "'There is a constant cascade of information being processed in the entire brain, but intelligence seems related to an efficient use of relatively few structures, where the more gray matter the better,' Haier said. 'In addition, these structures that are important for intelligence are also implicated in memory, attention and language.'" [ref1]


"Intelligence seems related to an efficient use of relatively few structures".

And there is the primary assumptive error.

The brain does not use structures. The brain IS the structure. It is the whole of its parts. Its parts are what matters yet the study ignores what the parts may do and concentrates on what the parts have done.

"The findings also suggest that the brain areas where gray matter is related to IQ show some differences between young-adult and middle-aged subjects. In middle age, more of the frontal and parietal lobes are related to IQ; less frontal and more temporal areas are related to IQ in the younger adults." [ref1]

IQ is different by age? Do the researchers truly believe a person is 'smarter' the older the person is? If so, they are making the paramount error of misinterpreting knowledge for the use of it.

So why would specific areas of the brain be 'larger' when they are used more often?

Read 'The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing' for an explanation of how neurons are formed, why they are formed and what the value within them has to do with a need for more neurons. In summation: the more a receptor's pathway of memory is used the larger the signals are that are processed within the neuron. That makes outputs of neurons at the end of the pathway 'wake up' the process necessary to have someplace to put that value when expelled from the final neuron in the path. The gray matter grows. Since the study is concentrating on short-term memory the result of a larger gray matter would indicate a higher degree of short-term evaluative memory processing and a faster degree of processing. The former, being a result of the latter.

"The research does not address why some people have more gray matter in some brain areas than other people, although previous research has shown the regional distribution of gray matter in humans is highly heritable. Haier and his colleagues are currently evaluating the MRI data to see if there are gender differences in IQ patterns." [ref1]

Speed of processing is heritable. Which sensor pathways are processed faster than others is heritable as well.

"Haier's colleagues in the study include Dr. Michael T. Alkire and Kevin Head of UCI and Drs. Rex E. Jung and Ronald A. Yeo of the University of New Mexico. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development supported the study." [ref1]


And wasted every penny of it.


Forms of Reasoning

Do young children really have better memories than adults?

The article is entitled: "Young kids have better memories than adults. Children use different form of reasoning, study suggests" as posted on MSNBC.COM quoting a Reuter's story from the journal Psychological Science.

The problem is, it is true but not at all for the reasons assumed. "Small children apparently have better memories than their parents, researchers reported on Thursday." [ref]

Why would that be true?

"Vladimir Sloutsky, director of the Center for Cognitive Science at Ohio State University", led the study and came to conclusions.

"...Children used a different form of reasoning called similarity-based induction when they analyzed the pictures. When shown subsequent pictures of animals they looked carefully to see if the animal looked similar to the original cat. Adults, however, used category-based induction - once they determined whether the animal pictured was a cat, they paid no more attention. So when they were tested later, the adults didn't recognize the pictures as well as the children."

The researchers would have one believe that somehow between 5 years of age and adult, the human brain changes the method it uses to recall memories. That is absurd.

What changes and what accounts for the difference in the researcher's results is the different memory being used by the 5 year old and the adult.


Between the ages of three and eight children begin to acquire the sense of self they will come to know as their own being. Healthy adults have achieved that state years before and have developed a memory in long-term based upon its supported existence.

Generally. five year old children have not developed the self. They may toy with its emerging qualities by assigning an imaginary friend to the 'being' they perceive is in them or they may advance to the 'on' state of self-awareness and immediately grasp its inherent "selfness".

Still others may not acquire the true sense of self until later in the teenage years and will suffer from emotional distress because of it.

Many, especially today with the dependency on external stimulus not requiring mental evaluation (ie. television, movies, video games, internet sites, visual stimuli) never acquire a true sense of self and use that short-term memory as more of a way-station to long-term. Those people suffer from depression, are easily angered and tend to make decisions based on their past decisions without regard for consequences they have not already experienced.

Young children live in long-term memory.

What goes in comes close to right back out again when stimulated by what went in before. When that happens to an older person that person will live in the past, not concentrate on the 'now' and worry about the 'future' as it will be what the past has been.

So what would the difference be between Sloutsky's methods of memory recall?

"Similarity-based induction" and "category-based induction" are essentially the same thing. The only difference is in the perception of there being a difference. That, as well as their being descriptive of two different processes

If something is 'similar' it can also be said to fit into a category. If something is in a category it is essentially similar to anything else in the same category. Sloutsky created a circle of logic in naming the two forms of observed memory recall.

The reason he did is that all memory is 'similar' memory, which makes all memory similar to category recognition.

Induction, on the other hand is a beginning, not a deduction. One is inducted into something, not deducted into something.

This makes Sloutsky's terminology flawed in that the terms only refer to the process of acquiring data by which to cause a recall of memory. In other words, the terms used are oxymorons.

In reality the process of memory recall is a combination of stimulus from a sensor input, compared to past (long-term) memory in order of the time it was last introduced to long-term memory which determines its strength of recall.

Memory (both long and short-term) is not like a computer's memory. Memory is not 'stored' in the brain. It is fluid and is constantly moving deeper into the 'past' while becoming smaller and smaller values (which creates the concept of a passing of time).

For the concept of 'time' to take root in a human the short-term memory must be active from which to deduce a difference in memory age.

For a five year old the concept of 'time' has not yet emerged as memory is new (compared to an older brain) and therefore more similar and less different in 'age' or strength, so therefore easier to recall.


Sloutsky says, "it's one case where knowledge can actually decrease memory accuracy". [ref]

And that would not be true. It is not knowledge that does anything. If knowledge did anything such as decrease memory, then a person who had memorized a book would be unable to recall it's beginning. A person who graduated from college with a PhD would be unable to use the fundamentals of her chosen field.

What is true is the way memory is formed.

Memory is formed from new input and the comparison to past memory. The result is the new memory made up partially of the new input and partially of the past memory. Less past memory, the more the new memory is made of input. With little objection to the type of input through past memory, the five year old will recall it not only faster, but with more clarity or precision.

Memory made in this manner means any memory recalled is a product of past memory. Your recollection of that five year old birthday party is not the recall of the party's input. It is the recall of every time you have recalled it before. That is how the past can become muddled and a witness can become useless in court.

This statement is fascinating: "And when taught to use category-based induction like adults, the children's ability to remember dropped to the level of adults." [ref]

Replicating the result of short-term observation (yes I know that, no I don't know that) is not doing what self-awareness does. It is doing what self-awareness results in without regard for what causes it.


Self-awareness is caused by short-term memory in humans that processes input after it has been compared to long-term memory by looping it into a circle then placing it in long-term memory.

It is how you recall being you. Long-term is seeded by short-term, which is seeded by long-term.

Children of five years, for the most part, have not made the connection in long-term that a short-term 'self' exists so they are not placing adjusted memory into long-term. They are placing direct comparisons of input to long-term into long-term.

The study was on the right track until the short-term researcher attempted to describe a process his maturity would not permit.



Having been a victim of stuttering, only able to relieve the pressure of the inability to enunciate my thoughts at a young age through concentration and replacement of words, this topic has special meaning. After quite a long time spent in a career in broadcasting where speaking was what I was paid for, the hope of conquering stuttering is not only strong but it is mandatory. It's causes are few while it's consequences are vast. It is time for research to concentrate on causes and not on what they hear.

On July 23, 2004 in Portland Oregon a conference took place: the American Speech-Language Hearing Association's conference on Fluency and Fluency Disorders. A research project that is laudable in it's motives as well as misled in its methods was scheduled to be presented. "'Phonologic Processing in Adults Who Stutter: Electrophysiologic and Behavioral Evidence,' will be published in August in the Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research. The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health." [ref1]

The research study concentrated on visual stimulus to cause a 'thought' to occur within the brains of the research subjects who were known to be 'stutterers' with half not stutterers.

The method of processing speech within the brain is no different in those who stutter and those who do not stutter. The difference is in utilization of brain function, not in location of the processing.

"'Traditionally, stuttering is thought of as a problem with how someone speaks, and little attention has been given to the complex interactions between neurological systems that underlie speaking,' says Christine Weber-Fox, an assistant professor of speech sciences who is interested in the brain's involvement in language processing." [ref1]

That is true. But this research study did not accomplish that task.

"'We have found differences in adults who stutter, compared to those who don't, in how the brain processes information when people are thinking about language but not speaking. For example, there was a significant delay in response time when subjects were given a complex language task. We also found that in people who stutter, certain areas of the brain are more active when processing some language tasks.'"

Besides not being aware of what language is or how it is created within the brain or in what manner it is outputted to become a voiced sound, the researchers have deduced that language is a thing unto itself. They are assuming that since language is a thing that comes from the brain that it therefore comes from language. Nothing the brain does comes from what it does. Nothing in the brain is processed any differently than any other thing that comes from the brain. Concentrating on what it is that happens instead of what is happening to make it happen has hampered neuroscience ever since the first person wondered what it was that caused what they wondered about.

It has become accepted protocol to assign areas of the brain to specific functions. That is false as well as true.

It has become accepted protocol to do the worst form of science as standard procedure: to observe and impose the observance upon what is being observed.


If cars were evaluated by what observation would dictate then a car would move forward from its forward motion center. A car would move backward from its backward motion center. Its lights would come on from its forward light center, which has a connection, somehow, to its rear lights center. The gears would shift from its gear center which somehow affects both the forward and backward motion centers and in rare circumstances can be affected by either motion center. The tires are each a mobility center which are somehow connected to the motion centers but there is no indication that there is any relationship between the motion centers and the light centers other than the key center. Isn't that a tad absurd?

That is what brain research is all about. Today the fMRI is used to look into the car to see what it is within those 'centers' that causes them to do what they do and everytime an fMRI is used on the car it traces the application of gasoline to specific parts of the car to determine what it is doing and where but it seems the gasoline is most active when the motion centers are being used but not active when the lights centers are being used but is active when the tire centers are being used and somehow is apparently controlled by the key center.


What Language Is


Language is the ordered motion of brain output to both the lungs and the vocal chords. It is a process that is both acquired and innate. It is no different than the sound made from a musical instrument. That sound is controlled by the instrumentalist. Language is controlled by the brain. The rules of language, the semantics, the grammatical and phonological traits of observed language are deduced from its use and from the observation of its use. They do not create its use and they are certainly not 'wired' into the brain or somehow programmed into it.


What Stuttering Is


Input stimulus is sent to the process of comparison between input and long-term memory. The result of that process is sent to motion and to short-term processing where short-term processes it again and sents its result to motion and to long-term memory. This accounts for the instant reaction followed by the awareness of that action. When motion is caused by long-term processing it is not 'consciously known' or 'aware of' by short-term processing. It is the cause of shaking, nervousness and depression. The more the subject is controlled by long-term processing the more susceptible to such conditions they are.

Stuttering is the result of a combination of two operational functions of the brain competing for dominance. It is the result of motion signals from the brain where long-term and short-term processing are competing for dominance in motor control and visual and aural processing are competing for dominance in system control.

System control is what process is actually running the brain. Is it long-term memory based in the past, or short-term memory based in the 'now'? Is it aural processing from hearing outputted to speech or is it visual processing from the eyes outputted to speech? Stuttering normally starts at a young age when that process takes place naturally. In many people the dominance is quickly acquired by either visual or aural processing in short-term as one will be functioning at a greater degree of clarity than the other.

In young humans: when aural and visual short-term processing are close to being the same clarity there is a battle for dominance until one dominates or neither do. If neither does the first part of stuttering is set. Short-term processing will not be in control of the system.

Long-term processing is your true 'memory'. It is the record of your life from the perspective of short-term processing. If short-term is not in control it will simplay pass long-term reactionary memory back into long-term and the subject will become a product of environment.

Long-term will take over the system if short-term has not become dominate.

If long-term is permitted to retain control out of a young age the subject will have a past memory based only in past memory and will become what they were when they were young. It is how young experiences and trauma can dominate an older person's actions and reactions.

The second part of stuttering is the degree of system dominance between short and long-term processing both outputted to speech.

A simple method to examine that is the difference between a stutterer who talks and a stutterer who sings.

A stutterer who talks is consciously determining what to say. Stuttering results as long-term is where the knowledge is coming to cause the speech to occur but short-term is where the motivation is coming for what to say. The result is a mismatch of motor control.

Singing is almost all long-term. A singer 'gets into' the music and the words flow out in melody with no short-term interference to cause motor control problems. The words are secondary to maintaining the melody.

In the study referenced [ref1] the examination consisted of 'showing' words to stutterers. That alone tilted the study for success to those who had partial visual dominance in short-term and caused those who were partially dominant in aural processing to contemplate a cross reference from visual to aural and accounted for the activity in the 'right side' of the brain.

When are researchers going to stop wondering about 'where' and start wondering about 'what'?

It would be assumed, if the researchers bothered to track the difference, that female subjects in the study had less right brain activity than male subjects. But that would only be true if the female subjects were typical visual females. Many females are aural in short-term and would have had the same result as the males. Many males are visual short-term thinkers and would have had less right brain activity than the normal aural male.

Without knowing in advance which type of brain process was dominant in both long and short-term for the subjects tested the test results are useless.

"'Adults who stutter often have great language skills, meaning they don't have problems with rules of grammar or with the sounds we use to code the words of our language,' Weber-Fox says. 'When they speak, however, their motor output falters, so they pause or trip over words. We wanted to evaluate the brain activity when they were not stuttering and, in fact, when they were not having to engage their speech motor systems.'" [ref1]


Whatever for?


There is no stutterer who stutters in their head. If they think in words and concepts they think fluidly in words and normally withdraw to the preferred stutter-less condition of thought. If they think in pictures it is the same situation only more frustrating when speaking.

A condition that is the result of mismatched motor control from long and short-term processing cannot be tested unless the motor control is active.

And the researchers make another fatal flaw of mental research in concluding that knowledge (rules of grammar) has anything to do with function.

"Stuttering, which interrupts the flow of speech, affects 5 percent of people in the United States at some time in their lives. Stuttering usually begins in the preschool years, and there is a higher incidence in males. Characteristics of the disorder can range from repetition of sounds, prolongation of syllables, elongated pauses between words and speech that occurs in spurts." [ref1]

The reason males suffer from stuttering more than females is stuttering is an aural difficulty. Normal male long-term processing is aural dominant. Normal male short-term processing is aural dominant. If the male subject has a competing visual in short-term and neither has acquired dominance in short-term the interaction of aural long-term output and confused short-term output is going to result in motor control problems.

The research [ref1] attempted a control group by having half of the subjects take the exercises who did not stutter. That is not a control group. If you stutter you are very well aware of stuttering. If you do not stutter you are very well aware that you do not stutter. The only control group possible in this research study would have been the tests themselves.

But since the research study did not address stuttering at all, just the processes of thought of those who stutter, without knowledge of what those processes were, and did it through visual stimuli which is not conducsive to stuttering and in many cases does not require a motor mismatch to read as reading is a long-term process, unless it is with great feeling; the study is flawed and useless.

Stuttering is able to be overcome. But one does not fix a leak by addressing the fluid leaking. One addresses a leak by plugging the hole.

Fixing stuttering requires giving one sense process dominance in short-term and building up a record of that dominance in long-term. It does not happen instantly. But it does happen in a relatively short period of time.

My stuttering ended when I was eight years old. But it ended only because I had become aware of myself in aural short-term processing and that was acquired by a strong regime of musical instrument training. Where before that age I was able to visualize images and for many years after was able to recall those images quite well, after the introduction to music that required a conscious effort to cause sounds to be different (singing is the worst solution to stuttering) I was focused on the aural conscious short-term process which took control. Until a couple of years ago I was not able to visualize an image. It took long discussions with a friend who is totally short-term visual and aural long-term. I had to adapt my descriptions to match his visual process and in that process I acquired the ability to once again visualize.

Stuttering started to creep into my life again after that. Luckily I know how it works and I am able to stop any stuttering incident just as quickly as it started. Focus on now. Concentrate on the rims of my glasses as I see. It brings me into 'now' and relieves the interference from long-term memory and therefore the stuttering resulting from that interference.

I spoke on the air for quite a few years, making a meager and worthless living in broadcasting. I was a voice over actor (Screen Actors Guild member) with the credit of the last six years of the CBS TV series Knots Landing under my belt. I served as the 'voice' of 74 radio and television stations across the country. And at 8 I could not utter my name without laboring and forcing it out through volume.

Stuttering is not a crippling condition. It is a condition that can be solved. But it cannot be solved unless the subject takes control of their brain instead of letting it control them.

A final note: If the reader has a problem with a former announcer talking about a scientific topic the reader is far too controlled by long-term memory. Think 'now' and you will start to realize what you have learned is what others have learned which is not how to learn new things.


Bad Science and Zombie Monkeys Face Procrastination

Rewards and consequences are what happen when an event is culminated. Neuroscience is stuck in the mode of imposing results upon causes, and therefore seeks the 'reward' process in the brain. Since rewards happen externally to the brain, as a result of the brain, or another brain or dumb luck, this imposition amounts to very bad science.

Depending upon the field of concentration of the researcher, many studies have been conducted regarding rewards: mostly in rats. By assuming that a 'goal' represents a 'reward' and assuming that a monkey, trained to recognize a 'goal' of juice is working for the 'reward', then assuming that addressing the wrong aspect of brain process results in the assumptions of a 'study' that abused the animals being studied is a horrible statement on today's National Institute of Health.

In the latest: "Brain's Reward Circuitry Revealed in Procrastinating Primates" [ref1] the National Institute of Mental Health chooses to play with a gene instead of accomplish the same process using antagonist drugs effecting dopamine.

"Using a new molecular genetic technique, scientists have turned procrastinating primates into workaholics by temporarily suppressing a gene in a brain circuit involved in reward learning. Without the gene, the monkeys lost their sense of balance between reward and the work required to get it." [ref1]

"'The gene makes a receptor for a key brain messenger chemical, dopamine,' explained Barry Richmond, M.D., NIMH Laboratory of Neuropsychology. 'The gene knockdown triggered a remarkable transformation in the simian work ethic. Like many of us, monkeys normally slack off initially in working toward a distant goal. They work more efficiently - make fewer errors - as they get closer to being rewarded. But without the dopamine receptor, they consistently stayed on-task and made few errors, because they could no longer learn to use visual cues to predict how their work was going to get them a reward.'

The main focus should be on the term 'messenger'. Dopamine, like other neurotransmitters is simply the chemical mechanism used in the brain to cause a transmission of signal values from one area of process to another while stopping the reverse: which would cause undesired results.

Just about all of neuroscience is fixated on the messenger mechanism. In this case it is called the Brain Reward System; (BRS). There is no such thing.

Some background is in order: From Merck; "On their surface, most cells have many different types of receptors. A receptor is a molecule with a specific three-dimensional structure, which allows only substances that fit precisely to attach to it--as a key fits in its lock. Receptors enable natural (originating in the body) substances outside the cell, such as neurotransmitters and hormones, to influence the activity of the cell. Drugs tend to mimic these natural substances and thus use receptors in the same way. For example, morphine and related pain-relieving drugs use the same receptors in the brain used by endorphins, which are substances produced by the body to help control pain. Some drugs attach to only one type of receptor; others, like a master key, can attach to several types of receptors throughout the body. A drug's selectivity can often be explained by how selectively it attaches to receptors." [ref3]


"Drugs that target receptors are classified as agonists or antagonists. Agonist drugs activate, or stimulate, their receptors, triggering a response that increases or decreases the cell's activity. Antagonist drugs block the access or attachment of the body's natural agonists, usually neurotransmitters, to their receptors and thereby prevent or reduce cell responses to natural agonists." [ref3]

So what is wrong with this focus of concentration?


An example:


In a telephone conversation, Bob is telling Mary how she came close to winning the lottery but did not quite make it. Mary wants to win the lottery. So Mary hires a wireologist to examine her phone system to find the way to make what she is hearing different than what is being said. The wireologist identifies a switch location back at the phone company office that accepts the connection from Bob and directs it to the receptor of Mary. Winning the lottery matters to Mary.

Mary instructs the wireologist to find a way to boost the result from Bob and turn that 'not quite make it' into 'congratulations, you win'.

The wireologist comes up with an artificial agonist. Others would call it an amplifier. The wireologist places the ampli... sorry, artificial agonist to effect the signal coming from Bob and increase it so when it starts to go into the Mary receptor it is larger than it was when Bob sent it.


Does Mary get her lottery win?


Of course not, Bob is just louder.

Do synapses sending enhanced signals change the signal they receive for transmission?

No they don't. They make the message larger, after they receive it.

Neither process changes the signal where it is made. Both processes pump up the messenger. Both processes affect the message but do not change its initial value, meaning or purpose.

Mary still loses the lottery, no matter how close she may have come. And the brain's signal is larger from that point on, not prior to it.

The difference between that rather lame example and the method of brain function is nothing. The outcome is the same. Mary may choose to accept a loud response as a positive response (as most mob members will attest to), and the brain will process an output that is stronger than the input told it to be.

The result will be hyperactivity, greater strength, repetition of the same useless result and less control.

Now, let us reverse that example (should the process itself reverse we would be discussing an altogether different condition).

In a telephone conversation, Bob is telling Mary how she exceeded the balance in her checking account. Mary wants to have the money she wrote the bad check on. So Mary hires her friend, the wireologist to examine her phone system to find the way to make what she is hearing different than what is being said. The wireologist identifies the same switch location back at the phone company office that accepts the connection from Bob and directs it to the receptor of Mary. Not getting caught for stealing from the bank matters to Mary.


Mary instructs the wireologist to find a way to reduce the result from Bob and turn that 'overdraft' into 'instead of a toaster we're giving away cash'.

The wireologist comes up with an artificial antagonist. Others would call it a resistor. The wireologist places the resis... sorry, artificial antagonist to effect the signal coming from Bob and decrease it so when it starts to go into the Mary receptor it is smaller than it was when Bob sent it.

Does Mary get her extra free cash?

Of course not, Bob is just harder to hear.

Do synapses sending reduced signals change the signal they receive for transmission?

Yes they do. They make them smaller.

Neither process changes the signal where it is made. Both processes shrink the messenger. Both processes affect the message but do not change its initial value.

Mary still goes to jail for a bogus check, no matter how much she tried otherwise. And the brain's signal is smaller from that point on, not prior to it.

The difference between that second rather lame example and the method of brain function is nothing. The outcome is the same. Mary may choose to accept a quieter response as a positive response, and the brain will process an output that is smaller than the input told it to be.

The result will be indifference, lack of motivation, weakness and depression.

"Richmond, Zheng Liu, Ph.D., Edward Ginns, M.D., and colleagues, ... trained monkeys to release a lever when a spot on a computer screen turned from red to green. The animals knew they had performed the task correctly when the spot turned blue. A visual cue - a gray bar on the screen - got brighter as they progressed through a succession of trials required to get a juice treat. Though never punished, the monkeys couldn't graduate to the next level until they had successfully completed the current trial." [ref1]

"As in a previous study ( using the same task, the monkeys made progressively fewer errors with each trial as the reward approached, with the fewest occurring during the rewarded trial. Previous studies had also traced the monkeys' ability to associate the visual cues with the reward to the rhinal cortex, which is rich in dopamine. There was also reason to suspect that the dopamine D2 receptor in this area might be critical for reward learning. To find out, the researchers needed a way to temporarily knock it out of action." [ref1]

Where the monkeys were 'learning' through repetition these researchers determined the process was dependent on the "reward approached" condition.

This is where the study becomes confusingly interesting; "Previous studies had also traced the monkeys' ability to associate the visual cues with the reward to the rhinal cortex, which is rich in dopamine." [ref1]

Visual cues were used to direct the monkeys to complete a task and gave the task 'purpose' and relative placement, regardless of whether such process was the process the monkeys used in their brains for dominance: much like pain allows the subject to place potential damage in perspective.


By reducing the neurotransmitter messenger these researchers deprived their monkeys of the balance needed to place activity in perspective and therefore caused the monkeys to act without regard for potential consequence. THAT is animal cruelty.

It is no different than shutting off their eyes with blindfolds and then determining that since the monkey did not stop pushing a button they somehow were less procrastinating.

"'The monkeys became extreme workaholics, as evidenced by a sustained low rate of errors in performing the experimental task, irrespective of how distant the reward might be,' said Richmond. 'This was conspicuously out-of-character for these animals. Like people, they tend to procrastinate when they know they will have to do more work before getting a reward.'" [ref1]

In reality, the monkeys were repeating what worked without regard for the interference of visual confusion. The study does not say whether the monkeys were male or female, but normally monkeys are aural thinking creatures with most female monkeys being visual thinking creatures. It is why males use sound to communicate and females mostly use gestures. If the monkeys used in the study were indeed aural thinking creatures the visual 'cues' were a pain in the brain and actually caused error by their presence. Eliminating that influence removed an obstacle from learning, it did not remove procrastination. Procrastination is a result of brain processes, not a cause.

Studies that have taught female apes how to communicate with human sign language are dependent upon the female's visual process. Male apes do not do as well in sign language communication as they do not think in pictures.

"'This new technique permits researchers to, in effect, measure the effects of a long-term, yet reversible, lesion of a single molecular mechanism,' said Richmond. 'This could lead to important discoveries that impact public health. In this case, it's worth noting that the ability to associate work with reward is disturbed in mental disorders, including schizophrenia, mood disorders and obsessive-compulsive disorder, so our finding of the pivotal role played by this gene and circuit may be of clinical interest,' suggested Richmond.

The danger in this form of deduction, from this form of bad science study, lies in the treatment it receives from the gullible press.

A case in point: The BBC surmised: "Scientists in the United States have found a way of turning lazy monkeys into workaholics using gene therapy." [ref4] NO! That is NOT what happened. It should have read: "Scientists in the United States have found a way of turning normal monkeys into zombies using gene therapy."

Just read the report to find out what reduced or eliminating dopamine was actually effecting: "the monkeys lost their sense of balance between reward and the work required to get it", [ref1] and, "Previous studies had also traced the monkeys' ability to associate the visual cues with the reward to the rhinal cortex, which is rich in dopamine." [ref1]. These 'scientists' were shutting off the animals' feedback so without guidance from results they continued the process unabated: Zombie Monkeys.


The BBC quotes the study authors: "'The monkeys under the influence of the treatment don't procrastinate.'" [ref4]

The monkeys under the influence of the treatment are not ABLE to ascertain success or failure, so they just keep trying. They do what works, as they learn what works. THAT is not the lack of procrastination. It is the lack of control. To assume such is the lack of procrastination is to misread the study methods, which is a quite typical process when scientists assume without knowing what they are doing.

Learning is a process of what works and what does not work. The more something works the more it can be said to be a 'good' result, even if the task is not all that good. By removing the feedback of 'what works' the monkeys kept acting upon the task, learning what was 'good' from the result of the juice, not the result of the complicated set of visual stimulus the researchers had stacked against them and not at all because the juice was a 'reward'. The juice was the only feedback the monkeys had 'under the influence'.

The only thing the study shows is that when removing confusion from a task the chances of reaching it are greater.

As most flawed studies do, this one continues on with the hope for more funding: "Barry Richmond, M.D., NIMH Laboratory of Neuropsychology" [ref1] said, "'This new technique permits researchers to, in effect, measure the effects of a long-term, yet reversible, lesion of a single molecular mechanism. This could lead to important discoveries that impact public health. In this case, it's worth noting that the ability to associate work with reward is disturbed in mental disorders, including schizophrenia, mood disorders and obsessive-compulsive disorder, so our finding of the pivotal role played by this gene and circuit may be of clinical interest. For example, people who are depressed often feel nothing is worth the work. People with OCD work incessantly; even when they get rewarded they feel they must repeat the task. In mania, people will work feverishly for rewards that aren't worth the trouble to most of us.'" [ref1] (OCD is Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder).

But that is not what the study addressed and it is not what the study can even hope to assume from its results and its methods.

The BBC summed it up differently, "Dr Richmond believes treatments based on this concept could one day benefit people with conditions like depression, where motivation has largely disappeared from their lives. But for the rest of us, the day when such treatments fall into the hands of our bosses may be one we would prefer to put off." [ref4]

Rest assured BBC, with scientists working in this field you have no worry of anything causing such concern. Monkeys are not humans. Where the monkey has a short term process it is unable to recall the use of it past the moment it was used. It is what separates humans from apes: the loop of short-term recall remembered in long-term memory.

But scientists are like monkeys in this study. Scientists are now concentrating on the visual feedback of the action of playing with the new point of focus. The hot button of research is DNA and the new hot toy is the fMRI. Put the two together and you wind up with a great deal of observation and absolutely no contemplation.


Concentrating on what they see, scientists have deduced that the messenger process (synapse) is the cause of everything.

By developing drugs, and now gene therapy that address the messenger they are just increasing or decreasing the message after it has been developed and are giving false hope to people who should not be treated with such disrespect.

From incorrect assumptions come incorrect deductions. From incorrect focus, comes incorrect promises. From incorrect results, come incorrect predictions. The only result is more funding to find more incorrect assumptions.

Drop a few 'buzz' words into the prediction and those with an interest for solutions grab at the straw. "This could lead to important discoveries that impact public health. In this case, it's worth noting that the ability to associate work with reward is disturbed in mental disorders, including schizophrenia, mood disorders and obsessive-compulsive disorder, so our finding of the pivotal role played by this gene and circuit may be of clinical interest." [ref1]

The ability to associate is the problem.

The brain works by association: it works by reference. Take away a reference built in to a study's methods and the results will not be what the study hopes to find but the outcome will appear the same. That results in deductions based on error.

"Schizophrenia, mood disorders and obsessive-compulsive disorder", are all observable forms of behavior caused by specific uses of the brain process and are treatable through the application of the whole brain process. That method addresses Bob.


Science does not address 'Bob' since 'Bob' is elusive and requires contemplation to deduce. It is not possible for an fMRI to watch blood flow and observe what happens inside a neuron, only what happens around one.

Science addresses Mary and assumes since Mary is what is able to be observed that making Mary different somehow makes Bob different. The result is the same every single time. Mary changes, with side-effects required while Bob lurks, waiting for the treatment to stop so what is being said can once again get through whether Mary likes it or not.

Your human brain consists of feedbacks in each level of processing. Long-term memory uses short-term memory to feedback relevance to 'now'. Without the control of short-term, there is no relevance to 'now' and the long-term process will just repeat itself making Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder a reality instead of 'now' being reality. You may as well be a cow.

Pain is a feedback to action of the body. Without pain you would hurt yourself with every motion you made, to a degree.

Almost all human mental conditions are the result of the lack of feedback control from short-term processes.

A gene may be responsible for the low degree of short-term control, but it is not the last word. A gene may be responsible for the lack of dopamine, but it is a condition one would be with since birth, which would reduce the entire system to match it. A gene may be responsible for the condition of the body's ability to feel pain but it is only responsible for the mechanics of the system, not the use of it.


If Bob was working in his bank and was unable to make the phone system work, the 'gene' of the wires may be responsible. But Bob would still say Mary's account was overdrawn. He would just be unable to communicate that message.

If a building was held together by bricks and housed Bob's bank, the removal of one brick may indeed affect the work output of the bank. But the brick is only the part upon which the bank can rely. It is not the cause of balancing Mary's checkbook.

If enough bricks were removed, Bob's office may indeed fall off the side of the building. That would not affect Mary's account being overdrawn. But a scientific study of today, with the visual concentration of observation without contemplation would blame the brick for Mary's overdraft and would seek to find solutions to her overdraft by concentrating on testing the bricks.


Bad science.


But don't let that get in the way of continuing research funding.


Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder

As with most conditions of brain function deemed not-normal, scientists focus on the observable and declare it to be the cause. In this case, the very subject and method of study lends to its own deductions.

As reported in the Toronto Star, the 'traits' of the condition become the 'condition' supported by the observation of real estate location.

"Scientists say they have unearthed a clue to solving the mystery of obsessive-compulsive disorder - the trait characterized with humour on the TV detective series Monk. But OCD, as it's known, is rarely a laughing matter. Rather, its hallmarks are three behaviours: hand-washing, checking and hoarding, each carried out in the extreme. Now a study points to an understanding of the condition - and goes on to say the different behaviours may actually represent distinctly different syndromes." [ref1]

Is OCD its 'hallmarks' or is it, its cause, or is its cause its hallmarks?

According to this study, it depends on the real estate and not the process.

"Scientists have demonstrated that each of the three behaviours activated a different brain region. Their study was published in the latest issue of the Archives Of General Psychiatry." [ref1]

"They found that patients with hand-washing obsessions experienced activity in one brain region when presented with thoughts of dirty toilets and other germ-infested objects. Patients characterized as "hoarders" experienced activity in a different brain region when presented with piles of papers. And "checkers", who compulsively check on such things as whether appliances have been turned off, experienced activity in yet another brain region when shown pictures of kettles and irons." [ref1]

These scientists have taken what they observe to be the reason for what they observe.


So what is OCD?


Long-term memory dependency.


It is like your computer getting stuck in a program loop. That mental loop could be as simple as required matching or as complex as required correction.

Required matching is when long-term memory is in control of the subject's brain to such an extent that person's reactions are solely based on memory without the influence of the input, other than as a trigger for the memory. That makes the subject reject a non-match.

Required correction is when long-term memory is in control of the subject's brain to such an extent that person's reactions are likewise solely based on memory, but to a greater degree so that reality must match the memory's perception. That makes the subject cause the match.

OCD is observable from the lowest degree form of making sure the lamp is turned exactly the right way, where it belongs; the coffee table book is placed in exactly the same spot, where it belongs; the bathroom toothbrush holder is on the right side of the bowl and turned the right way, where it belongs; all the way up to and including a long-term loop, that causes required matching, even when the match is not the topic.


Such latter OCD 'trait' is manifested by those who 'hoard' in order to make sure the match is present before hand; by those who 'check' to make sure the match is present before hand; and by those who clean without dirt to make sure the match is present before hand. All three are quite harmless and in many cases can turn out to be predicatively required.

The Required matching subject is in far more danger. But what would account for the difference in 'real estate'?

The type of mental processing, delivering the long-term memory.

A "thought of a dirty toilet or germ infected object" [ref1] is a concept. Concepts are dealt with in the brain through the 'aural' pathways and mostly experienced by aural thinkers. Graphic image thinkers deal in created realities through pictures.

"Hoarders" can be either conceptual aural thinkers or visual image thinkers, while "checkers" are most often visual thinkers seeking reassurance of a recurring long-term memory.

A major problem with this study is that the subjects involved in it were presented with 'pictures'. If they were aural thinkers the real estate associated with that 'thought' would be the combination of aural pathways seeking matches in visual pathways. If they were visual thinkers the real estate associated with that 'thought' would be the visual process. Using images to invoke aural thoughts is a sure fire way to guarantee long-term dependence on the outcome, rendering the 'control group of 'healthy' individuals nearly as susceptible to OCD in small degrees as those already suffering it.


"David Mataix-Cols of the Institute of Psychiatry in London and his colleagues studied OCD patients, along with healthy volunteers. The scientists conducted brain scans as the participants viewed pictures and were asked to think about specific events." [ref1]

Let us set one thing very straight at this point: A person with OCD is NOT UNHEALTHY. There is no physical way the researchers could determine that "healthy volunteers" were not experiencing the exact same conditions the supposed "unhealthy OCD patients were experiencing" [ref1]. The process of long-term dependence is nearly universal in humans. It is the cause of all emotional distress and the cause of almost all crime, hatred, bigotry, discrimination, love, lust and all other outcomes of brain function in humans. It is very rare to find a human today that is not controlled by long-term memory.

The more society becomes dependent on visual stimuli, the more society will become visual dependent. Watching television, commercials, videos, video games, movies and the like all contribute to the un-aware condition already supported by most humans living today. Those who are already visual thinkers add those visual inputs to their perception of reality just as easily as if they witnessed them in reality. It makes for a serious concern for visual thinker capacity to evaluate reality as it is and not as it has become to them.

Back to the 'study': "A simultaneous recording would instruct them to "Imagine touching the following objects" as pictures of dirty toilet bowls, money and a door knob appeared. "Imagine you forgot to turn off the following appliances," with pictures of a tea kettle, iron and car brakes. And "Imagine the objects belong to you but must be thrown away forever," with a display of stacks of newspapers and empty containers." [ref1]

And the outcome expected by the researchers did not involve the brain doing just what it was told to do?

"Washing, checking and hoarding provoked different brain circuits, and OCD patients showed more activity in these regions than did the volunteers. Washing and checking triggered some overlapping activity, but the checking behaviour called on another region that regulates motor activity." [ref1]

The volunteer 'healthy' subjects did show increases in the same real estate, just not as much, (degree) as those diagnosed with OCD. "Washing and checking" both involve visual confirmation. "...the checking behaviour called on another region that regulates motor activity". There is no such 'real estate' that regulates motor activity. The process of motor activity is a result of long-term contemplation and in those with an engaged short-term also receives input control from that level.

The observed second process for checking was that short-term interaction. Checking requires assumption, backed by method. Method requires conceptual evaluation and is only possible in short-term memory.

The real estate observed by the researchers is unknown by the study's announcement, but it is not important where something happens. What is important is WHY something happens. Imposing where on why is absurd but it is a common 'trait' of 'neuroscience' disease based in visual observation and supporting evidence of the fMRI's ability to show absolutely nothing of brain function, only the blood needed to cause the cellular structure to function.

The process of being dependent on long-term memory processing works in many ways. It can mean that one is always reacting to something: as in moving out of place objects, cleaning something the same day each week, taking the exact same route to work each day, opening one's lunch box or bag and removing items in the same order each day, even having the same response to the same inquiry, as in 'how are ya'? which means nothing other than a habitual form of greeting.

Habits are not at all hard to define.

Most people who display a habit do not do so consciously.

A person with the habit of twitching her nose when nervous; is not aware of that act. A person who has a habit of pulling her ear when scared is not aware of that act. A person who has a habit of talking overly loud in quiet surroundings is not aware of that act.

A person who becomes dependent upon a tool and imposes wondrous properties to it is not aware of that act but every single use of that tool must be suspect. So it is with the fMRI. So it is with the quackery of disguised phrenology.

In The History of Phrenology on the Web by John van Wyhe [ref2] it is important to compare what 'was' the 'science of phrenology' and what 'is' the science of brain study today.

"Phrenology was a science of character divination, faculty psychology, theory of brain and what the 19th-century phrenologists called "the only true science of mind." Phrenology came from the theories of the idiosyncratic Viennese physician Franz Joseph Gall (1758-1828). The basic tenets of Gall's system were:" [ref2]


1. The brain is the organ of the mind.

2. The mind is composed of multiple distinct, innate faculties.

3. Because they are distinct, each faculty must have a separate seat or "organ" in the brain.

4. The size of an organ, other things being equal, is a measure of its power.

5. The shape of the brain is determined by the development of the various organs.

6. As the skull takes its shape from the brain, the surface of the skull can be read as an accurate index of psychological aptitudes and tendencies.



So what makes phrenology disguised today and completely in charge of neuroscience research?

The brain is the organ of the mind: The brain is the cause of the mind. The mind is composed of multiple distinct, innate faculties: The brain is composed of 'centers'.

Because they are distinct, each faculty must have a separate seat or "organ" in the brain: ie: real estate location.

The size of an organ, other things being equal, is a measure of its power: The size of the image of activity is the degree of importance it receives in studies of the brain.

The shape of the brain is determined by the development of the various organs: The shape of the brain is determined by the space in which it grows.

As the skull takes its shape from the brain, the surface of the skull can be read as an accurate index of psychological aptitudes and tendencies: As the brain takes shape a likewise inaccurate index of aptitudes and tendencies is being determined by looking past the skull and watching the blood flow.

"However, like so many popular sciences, Gall and the phrenologists sought only confirmations for their hypotheses and did not apply the same standard to contradictory evidence. Any evidence or anecdote which seemed to confirm the science was readily and vociferously accepted as "proof" of the "truth" of phrenology. At the same time, contradictory findings, such as a not very benevolent and disagreeable person having a well-developed organ of Benevolence were always explained away. This was often done by claiming that the activity of other organs counteracted Benevolence. What was never accepted by phrenologists, however, was that admitting that the activity of a particular faculty could be independent of the size of its organ undermined the most fundamental assumptions of the science- and thereby rendered all of its conclusions inconsistent and meaningless." [ref2]


So it is today.


Anytime an fMRI is used in a research study its use alone provides confirmation of the hypothesis, regardless of contradictory reasoning. Anytime a researcher proclaims an area of the brain is 'associated with' something, it provides confirmation of the real estate internal phrenology used in today's research.

It was wrong in the 19th Century and it is wrong in the 21st Century.


"Phrenology has been almost universally considered completely discredited as a science since the mid-19th century. Even during the peak of its popularity between the 1820s and 1840s, phrenology was always controversial and never achieved the status of an accredited science, which was so coveted by its main proponents, such as the Edinburgh lawyer, George Combe and his circle. Rather than portraying phrenology as having succumbed to an inexorable progress of 'science' or representing the Victorians as having become less 'gullible', phrenology can be understood to have been diffused and absorbed into a host of other practices and traditions- as such many of its components live on. Alison Winter uses a similar approach to understand the 'disappearance' of mesmerism." [ref2]

Through the very same fatal error of repetition based science, "...most of phrenology's basic premises have been vindicated, though the particulars of reading character from the skull have not. For example, the principle that many functions are localized in the brain is now a commonplace (although many other functions are distributed). Also, areas of the brain that are more frequently used (as the right hippocampus of London taxi drivers) may become enlarged with use. (See The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 17, 1997.) This is exactly what phrenologists asserted." [ref2]

And even in John van Wyhe's wonderful history of Phrenology, the myth lives on: "Some personality or speech disorders correlate to specific atrophied regions of the brain. From this we conclude that the affected part of the brain was either necessary for or simply was that bit of the personality or ability. Modern brain imaging techniques, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) make the localization of functions demonstrable beyond doubt." [ref2]

The conclusions are both valid and invalid.

Location does correlate with function but function has nothing to do with location.

"Palaeontologists make endocasts from the skulls of early hominids to determine the shapes of their brains and have suggested that an enlarged node at Broca's region is evidence of language use. This is essentially phrenology in a new guise. Size is taken as evidence for power and functions are believed to reside in specifcally bounded regions. All of the 'organs' or bumps identified by phrenologists are now considered purely imaginary except for Gall's 'faculty for words or verbal memory'- which was close to the present location of Broca's and Wernicke's speech areas. However, following Spurzheim's modifications of Gall's system, later phrenology abandoned this only correct organ! And finally, today we know that what was traditionally called "the mind" is indeed nothing more than functioning human brain." [ref2]

Yet the notion that where something is has importance over what something is which has importance over how something works is ruling the science.

Habit becomes accepted practice.

Habit, used in passion for new technology, leads to disasters in reasoning.

The more something appears to fit the mold the more it is made to fit the mold, the more it joins and forms the new mold.

That is how long-term memory processing works.


When short-term, the loop of self-awareness itself is not being used for anything other than a way station to long-term there is no 'controlling' factor for repetition. Science has fallen for that unhealthy condition ever since it first agreed on the first cause of the sun rotating the earth.

The process has not changed. Neither has the process of brain function that allows it to happen.

Progress in science is so slow for the very same reason.

Breakthroughs are only considered monumental when the 'mental' is already part of the mono-habit.

In the mean time, bad science continues and studies are conducted that are designed to support the habit more than they are to discover anything new.

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder is a result of imbalance between long-term memory and short-term memory processes.

Overcoming it requires a simple injection of short-term control leading to a retained memory of such control.

If your kitchen pantry is loaded with green bean cans and you find yourself picking up more at the grocery store, as that is one of the items in your habitual trek through the store, same isle, same order and same list: put it back.

If your path to work each morning is easily maneuvered, make it different.

If you are asked 'how are you?' respond with a different 'comeback' each time.

If you greet someone, comment about their condition, or their position, or greet them with 'good morning' or 'good afternoon' and leave the ambiguousness to others.


If you constantly say 'I could care less', evaluate what you say and realize that leaves room for less care. It is 'I could not care less', if you really mean it.

Pay attention to the little things that are repeated. Pay attention to yourself speaking. Listen to what you say more than you listen to what others say. Identify your place in space while walking instead of identifying the obstructions outside of your space. Break the habits you know you have and have others let you know the ones you are not aware of. Take the time to be different as being the same only supports the same and results in the same.

Being the same tends to make being different a bad thing, where being different is what makes you different than your memories.

Stop letting your memory control you and start controlling you, yourself. Refer to memory as guidance but do not repeat what has already been learned. Guidance becomes control when it is embraced as reality.

Your long-term memory, that driving force behind your reactions is not you. It is the collection of what you have previously experienced, whether you caused it or not. If you want your future to be as real as your past then make use of your 'now' by taking control over the reality you think exists. Test everything. Trust nothing in your memory.

Your memory is deceiving.

Every time you find yourself having to do something, stop yourself. Is it important to 'now' that you pick up the piece of paper? Is it important to 'now' that you put the coffee filters where they 'belong'? Nothing 'belongs' anywhere; everything just occupies space. It is important to 'now' that the seat be shifted a degree to one side as that is where the carpet impression says it should be? Is it important to 'now' to hunt down the culprit responsible for leaving that hair on the sink? Is it important to 'now' that you determine the reason why the door was not closed?

If your answer it is important, ask yourself if that importance is not coming from memory attempting to retain control.

Your memory will not let go of you easily. It will fight with everything it has, and in most cases that represents the reality you think is you. It is not reality. It is a mixture of many different perspectives of reality that together make up its own reality. Take control over that reality by imposing 'now' on it.

'Now' is the short-term loop of self-awareness that is 'you'. It is the 'you' that watches your emotions take control. It is the 'you' that wonders why you have no control of crying. It is the 'you' that wonders why you seem to worry whether what has happened before will happen again. It is the 'you' that should be in control. If it is in control it will not be watching you do what it cannot control. It will be that control.

Read the book 'The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing'. Learn how your brain works.

And remember that no matter how much you are not in control, you can be.


Vindication! How Memory Works

In the book, The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing, the process of memory function, what it is, how it works and the method that is used in brain memory is detailed.

Now, a new study from researchers at Boston University have shown exactly that[1].

Neurobiologists at Boston University's Center for Memory and Brain have provided the first evidence that rats use recollection when recognizing items they have recently experienced. In addition, the researchers show that rodents' capacity for recollection-like memory retrieval depends on the brain structure known as the hippocampus, the same structure believed to be involved in recollection in humans. Their findings are published in the September 9 issue of the journal Nature.

Although neuroimaging studies of hippocampal activity in normal individuals as well as studies of amnesia indicate the hippocampus could be crucial to recollection, definitive methods for assessing hippocampal activity in memory have largely remained out of reach.

The BU research team, led by Norbert Fortin, a research associate in the Laboratory of Cognitive Neurobiology at the Center for Memory and Brain, and including Howard Eichenbaum, Center director and professor and chairman of BU's Department of Psychology, and Sean Wright, a former BU undergraduate, set out to better define the role of the hippocampus in the human recollection process. They approached this in a novel way -- by investigating the activity of the hippocampus in the rat brain. Their approach also meant that they had to think outside the conventions of the discipline and ask, "Do rats have a capacity for recollection?"

In humans, signal detection techniques have been used to distinguish memory responses triggered by familiarity, the general sense that a person or thing has been previously perceived, from those triggered by recollection, the sudden rush of detailed memory. The BU team chose to determine whether analyses related to this technique, known as receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, could be used to assess rat memory processes.

With familiarity, previous encounters are not recalled. For instance, if you encounter someone you know you've met, your sense of "knowing" that person may be weak or strong, but it does not include details of previous encounters. ROC analyses show that familiarity manifests itself as a continuous function reflecting the strength of a perceptual impression in memory.

Recollection, by comparison, is expressed in an all-or-none fashion, triggered when a certain threshold of associative and contextual information has been achieved. It is a sudden, overwhelming rush of detailed memory, such as that which is experienced when you eventually recall the prior encounter with that familiar person.

The researchers devised a memory test that capitalized on rats' highly developed sense of smell as well as instinctual foraging behavior. Initially, the rats explored a "list" of 10 common household odors (for example, cinnamon, oregano, coffee, chocolate), each mixed in ordinary sand that hid a buried food reward.

Following a 30-minute retention period, they were presented with a series of 20 odors, the 10 "old" odors plus 10 "new" ones. In addition, the animal's decisions were intentionally biased by varying the difficulty of responding to each odor and by varying the food "payoffs" for correct identification of old and new odors.

The test design allowed the researchers to measure the ratio of correct and false odor identifications across a range of bias conditions, generating the ROC curve. The shape of this curve indicated the existence of both an all-or-none threshold component and a continuous-strength component. The curves produced are very similar to those observed in the ROCs of humans, indicating the existence of recollection and familiarity in support of recognition performance.

The researchers divided the rats into two comparable groups: a group in which the hippocampus was removed and a control group. When the rats were again tested, the results were compelling -- recollection was lost in rats without a hippocampus but familiarity remained intact. A further test of the controls showed that, in the normal forgetting process, familiarity fades quickly while recollection persists, precisely the opposite pattern observed in the animals without a hippocampus.[1]

The Enticy Institute would like to thank Boston University and their colleagues for once again showing the process of brain function is exactly as the publication; "The Brain is a Wonderful Thing" has shown.


On the FDA Panel Ruling Approving Vagus Nerve Implant for Depression Treatment

A seriously flawed research study, unknown, yet predictable consequences of the use of the device and a threat to the existence of Psychiatry itself, head the reasons for rejection of the FDA Panel's Recommendation for approval of the first implant claimed to counter depression.

The Neurological Devices Panel of FDA's Medical Devices Advisory Committee has voted "5 to 2 to recommend approval with conditions of Cyberonics' VNS Therapy&tm; System 'as an adjunctive long-term treatment of chronic or recurrent depression for patients over the age of 18 who are experiencing a major depressive episode that has not had an adequate response to four or more adequate antidepressant treatments.'" [ref1]

"FDA's Division of General and Restorative Neurological Devices will consider the deliberations, vote and recommendation of the Advisory Panel and make the final decision on approval of the VNS Therapy System for the proposed indication for use." [ref1]

We urge the Psychiatric community and the 'FDA's Division of General and Restorative Neurological Devices' to reject the panel's recommendation. We urge the Psychiatric community to put their hands on the wheel and start driving.

Setting aside, for the moment, the company's appeal for those who suffer from chronic depression, which is actually a veiled excuse for pleading the ability to recover investments, the approval of the device "Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS Therapy)" [ref1] stands in the face of logic and science and threatens the very future of Psychiatry as well as the lives of those it purports to help.


In an age when Psychiatric treatment has finally escaped the barbarism of blood-letting, the overkill of electric shock treatments and the absurdity of lobotomy, the FDA is seeking to approve the return to barbarism under the excuse of technology, expecting a magic bullet for the cause of a condition the FDA itself cannot define.

The study is peddled by Cyberonics, Inc. (NASDAQ:CYBX) as its proof of effectiveness.

"Using a technique known as vagus nerve stimulation, the device uses electrodes implanted in the neck to activate brain regions that are believed to regulate mood." [ref2]

"The decision by an expert advisory panel of the Food and Drug Administration came after a day of clashing scientific opinions about whether the data submitted by the manufacturer were adequate for approval. Proponents of the device prevailed, citing the desperate need of patients with chronic depression that does not respond to existing treatments." [ref2]

"Cyberonics' central study was a randomized trial involving 221 patients. All received implants, but the power was turned on for only half the group." [ref2]

"Of 111 patients getting stimulation, 17 showed an improvement of at least 50 percent on a psychiatric scale of depression after 12 weeks. Of 110 patients getting "sham" treatment, only 10 showed similar improvement. The difference between the groups was not statistically significant, however." [ref2]


Placebo trials make for one sided and ignorant assumptions. In this study, as with all other placebo trails, the company makes conclusions about the placebo participants as if the knowledge the researchers have of who used the placebo and who did not is somehow imposed upon the group of patients, who in reality, all assume they may or may not have the placebo.

With 111 patients resulted in 17 showing improvement of 'at least' 50%, that alone is a paltry 15% success rate. Of 110 patients receiving the placebo (interesting that it is referred to as the 'sham' treatment) and 10 showed 'similar improvement', a 9 percent success rate without the device: that would logically mean that the device itself contributed to only a 6% success rate. Failing to apply the placebo effect to the actual working device patients is a fatal flaw of all such studies. People participating in such trials are aware they either do or do not have the real treatment. Failing to take into account that assumption by those who actually have the treatment is to ignore the placebo effect altogether.

Cyberonics is resting its case on a 6% success rate but they do not address the rate of regression if the device fails to work or is removed. They do not address the long or short term consequences of the implant's effect on the patient. They do not address the most logical extension of this treatment.

If the FDA approves the device and a state or condition, based on "two or more adequate antidepressant treatments at appropriate dose and duration" [ref1] or even four or more such treatments is established, where surgery to implant a device is evident then the procedure becomes medical and not psychiatric and the science of Psychiatry will pass the legal ability to treat a patient with such state of condition to medical science after a specific number of chemical attempts.

That is forcing the science of Psychiatry back to the dark ages. It is passing the responsibility of mental condition to a tool instead of the trained professional. It is placing the determination of treatment options upon the use of previous treatment options and opening up a legal question of mal-practice against Psychiatrists who attempt to urge the removal of the device (only 6% were effective in trial) in order to 'try' other treatment options.

While Cyberonics' press release goes to great lengths to justify its mission "to improve the lives of people touched by epilepsy, depression and other chronic illnesses that prove to be treatable with our patented therapy, VNS" [ref1] it does so without one concern of consequence.

"'The Panel's recommendation represents a major step forward toward U.S. availability of the first FDA-approved, safe, tolerable and effective long-term treatment for patients with treatment-resistant depression,' commented Robert P. ('Skip') Cummins, Cyberonics' Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer. 'Millions of Americans today suffer from treatment-resistant depression (TRD), a devastating, lifelong and life-threatening illness. According to published studies, 15% of previously hospitalized patients commit suicide and annual depression treatment costs in the United States exceed billion including .7 billion for drugs alone.'" [ref1]

"Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is one of the most prevalent and serious illnesses in the world, affecting nearly 19 million Americans over the age of 18 in any given year. MDD is the fourth most disabling condition worldwide and the second most disabling condition in the U.S. Total annual costs of depression in the U.S. exceed billion including billion of annual direct treatment costs. Twenty percent of depressed Americans or approximately 4 million people suffer from treatment-resistant depression (TRD) defined as a depressive episode that has failed to respond to at least two antidepressant treatments of adequate dose and duration. Patients with TRD are often isolated, hopeless, desperate, and unemployed. Studies show that annual healthcare costs for patients with TRD exceed ,000 per patient per year. A person with depression is 35 times more likely to commit suicide than a person not experiencing depression and 15 percent of previously hospitalized depressed patients commit suicide. Although there are many safe and effective acute antidepressants including medications, psychotherapy and electro-convulsive therapy (ECT), there are no FDA-approved, informed-use, safe and effective long-term treatments for TRD. Multiple medication combinations are used to treat TRD without evidence of long-term safety and efficacy. ECT, the most effective acute antidepressant, is often declined, and is of limited long-term value due to cognitive side effects and high relapse/recurrence rates within six months of treatment." [ref1]

While Cyberonics identifies its target market and the vast potential for revenue it mentions how other treatments are "without evidence of long-term safety and efficacy", but fails to test its own treatment for the same consequence while admitting the business is full-steam ahead with "Pilot studies are underway evaluating VNS Therapy as a potential treatment for anxiety disorders, Alzheimer's disease and chronic headache/migraine."

Cyberonics has not one clue what causes any of those conditions, let alone depression. The Cyberonics treatment is like a cancer patient accepting a doctor's recommended surgery to open them up and wrap the tumor in a Band-Aid. Not one study is offered as to what the results will be, long term, to a patient who's treatment consists of masking a cause so it can be rushed to market so it can start making money without regard to if it does any good in the process. With only 6% success in the study offered to the FDA the claim is ridiculous.

The actual consequences are enormous.

A point in this issue is near the opening of the Washington Post's article: "Using a technique known as vagus nerve stimulation, the device uses electrodes implanted in the neck to activate brain regions that are believed to regulate mood." [ref2]

Notice the term 'believed to regulate mood'.

There is no 'location' that 'regulates' anything. Brain science has turned into where, instead of how, thanks to the fMRI and the false readings of blood flow through use. It is de-evolution of science to return to a modern and now accepted version of head-bumps and Franz Josef Gall's Phrenology.

Benjamin Rush was one of the leaders in 'Moral Treatment' which, "challenged the demonic explanations for insanity and emphasized the role of environment in determining character" [ref3] "Essential to this theory was a physiological basis for mental disorder: insanity was caused by brain damage." [ref3]


Today's chemotherapy treatments employ that attitude in treating synapse response. The present Cyberonics device extends it to the Vagus nerve.

"Promoted in the United States by Orson S. Fowler, the [phrenology] movement claimed a person's character was made up of 37 faculties which could be "read" on the cranium at the site where each was located. The size of the brain in these locations would reveal the strength of that particular faculty. As Fowler stated, there were "connexions and relations which exist between the conditions and developments of the BRAIN and the manifestations of the MIND." Phrenology was even applied to art as sculptors and painters did phrenological profiles of their subjects to insure their art would reflect the traits of the subject."

Now, science has switched from 'size' to 'location' but the quackery still persists.

In reality, the Cyberonics device and therapy is a patented return to the electropathy of the 19th century. "If electricity was applied to the areas where these charges were out of balance, the patient would be cured. Electricity was particularly useful in treating "nervous diseases" (mental illness) since there were no known scientific cures. Resourceful entrepreneurs soon began producing electrical garments and products, including corsets, belts, and hairbrushes (advertised as a cure for hair loss)." [ref3]

Cyberonics has produced a device that does the same thing and is no different in intent. It is created to make money, regardless of the noble attempt, "'to accomplish our mission in epilepsy in fiscal 2005 ... and the plan to properly scale our organization to accomplish our mission in depression will be implemented as soon as we are confident of depression approval.'" [ref1]


To place that commerce driven noble gesture ahead of the safety of the use of a device that has been shown by its own salesmen as capable of just 6% effectiveness is no less snake-oil than the electropathy it is based in and the phrenology that gives it credence.

In the Washington Post article, "'It's possible this is a viable treatment; it is also possible it is not a treatment,' said Richard P. Malone, a psychiatrist at Philadelphia's MCP Hahnemann University. 'I'm not sure it is ethical to give a treatment for which there is not substantial evidence.'" [ref2]

"Malone and another panel member, statistician Jonas Ellenberg, nearly convinced other panelists that the company should conduct another trial, but the proposal was shot down after a tense vote, with one panelist changing her mind. The chairwoman of the panel, Kyra Becker, a neurologist at the University of Washington, School of Medicine in Seattle, cast the deciding vote." [ref2]

No, it is not ethical and the excuses provided by Cyberonics to push through approval of the device border on the insane.

"'We lost four of these individuals in the last 2 1/2 hours,' said A. John Rush, a psychiatrist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, basing that figure on the high suicide rate among patients with resistant depression." [ref2]

"Karmen McGuffee of Garland, Tex., told the panel she had tried virtually every antidepressant drug on the market before getting the device. Improvement came within weeks, she said." [ref2]


"'My mother said she wasn't looking into the eyes of a dead person anymore,' she said. When people asked why she was willing to get an implant, she replied, 'I had nothing to lose.' [ref2]

Citing a desperate patient as proof of the reason to approve a literally untested and suspect device is an affront to the scientific community and the patients the device prays to assist. But she was not just a desperate patient.

"McGuffee was paid by Cyberonics to testify. Rush (not Benjamin), who was paid to conduct some of the clinical trials, said there are 30,000 suicides a year in America, about 80 percent of them attributable to depression. Half of those are among patients with treatment-resistant depression who had tried multiple therapies and were still not better, he said." [ref2]

In response to this article Karmen McGuffee wrote the Enticy Institute and issued this statement: "Please remove the paragraph which begins by stating I was paid by Cyberonics for my testimony. I WAS a desperate patient. VNS has helped me. Cyberonics has not compensated me financially. The Washington Post issued a correction...please do the same."

"In response to suggestions by some panel members that the company conduct another trial, Rush warned, 'In the time to do another trial, we will lose another 1,000 patients a month, 36,000 if the trial takes three years.' [ref2]

And there is the threat of 'act now so we can save them', as if the device is the only hope to desperate people. If that was the case for any chemical therapy the safety of drugs entering the market could never be assured or even pretended, but this is a mechanical device: a technological interference in brain function, a scary thought in and of itself.

"The company conducted a separate analysis with patients in another study. This group involved 124 patients who were similarly ill but were not getting vagus nerve stimulation. The company showed trend data that over 12 months, patients with the device were significantly better compared with those getting drugs or electro-convulsive therapy." [ref2]

"Malone, Ellenberg and the FDA's statisticians expressed worry that the two groups of patients were not comparable and the apparent benefit might be statistically spurious. Cyberonics officials argued that conducting a new trial would be problematic because of the special needs of this patient group." [ref2]

Not only is a new trial mandatory, but it is absurd not to be forced.

In the U.S. alone, over 400,000 people die each year from cigarette smoking-related causes. Using Rush's logic in the time to do another trial, we will lose another 1288 patients a month, 46,368 if the trial takes three years. Dare we compare losses without effective treatment over losses with ineffective and perhaps (most logically) damaging, treatment?

By Cyberonics' own flawed study, Rush's patients' deaths might be reduced by 6%. 60 people to benefit per thousand from the rush to market for a product that treats a condition the makers of the product have no idea of how is caused and the therapy that offers alternatives to barbaric intrusion surgery has never seen the light of day.

Depression, chronic or not, as long as it is not caused by a malfunction of tissue (which is almost never the case) is like the driver of a car who never touches the wheel.

Why is the car going there? Why did I hit that tree? I didn't turn that way. Slow down before I hit something else. Stay slow. Why is everything else so chaotic? Don't tell me I don't have control of my car. I have the gas pedal.

The problem with depression is, it is misunderstood. Depression is treated by increasing synapse transmission, but the synapse does not do the thinking. It sends the thinking on to the next neuron and keeps it from going the wrong direction.

Perhaps the most viable excuse for approving the Cyberonics device is its best hope to stop it from starting the ruin of a science who's only intention is to help others. Psychiatry cannot treat what the science of the medical doctor has assumed.

"The panelists mostly agreed that the data presented by Cyberonics had problems but were swayed by the lack of alternative treatments and the evidence that the device is generally safe, based on its widespread use to reduce epileptic seizures." [ref2]

The cause of seizures and the cause of depression are not at all the same. And there are alternative treatments. The problem with alternative treatment is simple. It is not normal. It is not accepted. It is not understood. And in most cases it is completely unknown.

The only treatment for any condition should be based on how the condition is caused and how the total system is affected by it.

To learn how depression is caused, what it is, how to treat it and why Psychiatry should never, ever give away the responsibility to fight depression, even after a million attempts, read 'The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing' available at The Enticy Institute.


But in the mean time, do not let the presentation of a different approach get in the way of stopping a horrible one.


On The Foundational Causes of Tornado Genesis

Understanding how the brain works relies on understanding how everything works. To fail to apply that knowledge to useful things would be a massive waste.


The following presentation

is a case in point:

On The Foundational Causes

of Tornado Genesis


NOTE: This chapter utilizes the same algorithm presented in The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing and the paper, On The States of Energy, Gravity & The Exponential Universe. If you have been trained in the art of weather forecasting this is not a paper you will understand. Foundational causes are not what you have been taught.

"I want to take a moment to gripe about the word "touchdown" in association with tornadoes. I believe that "touchdown" is quite inappropriate to describe the actual process of tornadic winds commencing at the surface. There is nothing coming down, in the sense that a solid tube would fall out of the sky. What actually goes on when a vortex is present in the atmosphere is that the vortex either (a) is already present at the surface, or (b) wraps around itself, like a smoke ring. The laws of Fluid dynamics tell us that (a) and (b) are the only two options. As noted elsewhere, the intense part of the vortex can build downward, but this is not quite the same as a tornado descending. What is actually happening is that the vortex at the surface increases its intensity (and decreasing its scale at the same time) to tornadic proportions, eventually producing winds capable of tornadic damage ... but the vortex itself is almost certainly already in contact with the ground. Strictly speaking, "the vortex" should not be equated to "the tornado." Prior to the commencement of damaging winds at the ground, the surface vortex is weak and spread out ... as it intensifies, the winds increase and the size of the circulation contracts. The vortex also can intensify upward (as we think happens in the tornadoes that are called "landspouts"). Rather than "touchdown" I would prefer to consider the observed process of the commencement of tornadic winds at the surface to be one of "spin-up" ... I hasten to add that "up" in this context does not imply ascent, but rather an increase of spin intensity." from Charles A. Doswell III ,What is a tornado? [1]

In an article appearing in USATODAY Meteorologist Eric Rasmussen predicted results from Project VORTEX :"We're probably within a year of having a real nice conceptual model of tornadogenesis. I think we'll eventually be rewriting some books on tornadoes." [2]

As the title would infer this paper will provide the foundational causes of tornadogenesis. We will show the initial conditions from which tornadogenesis becomes possible as well as the mechanism by which a tornado is formed. But most importantly we will define a tornado by its causes and in turn provide the basis for the rewriting of some books on tornadoes. This document is not a result of project VORTEX.




1.1 One definition is: "Technically, a tornado (from the Spanish word tornado, past participle of tornar, meaning to turn; and from tornada, meaning thunderstorm) is a violently rotating column of air, usually with a small diameter, extending from a turbulent cloud to the ground. Some smaller or less violent storms also have tornadic characteristics." [3]


1.2 Another definition is: "A violently rotating column of air, 10-100 m in diameter, usually made visible by a funnel cloud, which may reach the ground surface. Wind speeds of up to 100 meters per second may occur, but the damage to meteorological instruments caused by the passage of tornadoes makes exact measurement difficult. Tornadoes frequently occur in groups and are most common in the central USA and Australia, where they cause considerable damage." [4]

1.3 While the official definition is: "A violently rotating column of air, pendant from a cumulonimbus cloud, and nearly always observable as a "funnel cloud" or tuba." [5]

1.4 The most important things observed in all three of these definitions is the concentration on A: the source of the funnel cloud and B: the funnel cloud.


2.0 Just what is being observed?


2.1 When you have a picture taken of yourself, the photo is of the way others actually see you. But it is also the way you see your own reflection in a mirror. To you it appears to be a reflection. But to everyone else it IS you. How could that have any bearing on a tornado?

2.2 When we look at a tornado we see the image we are able to see. The one from OUR perspective. To find out how a tornado works we would have to see it from its perspective.

2.3 What that means is that what we see from OUR perspective will be upside down, or backwards from the way the thing or person we are looking at actually is.

2.4 Tornadoes are observed (from OUR perspective) to be funnels coming down from the clouds. What causes a tornado to form seems to be, from observation, the causes within the clouds.

2.5 But the funnel we see, is NOT the actual tornado. It is the HOLE within the tornado. It is the center of the tornado. We can see it since it is filled with low cloud moisture. We can only see the actual tornado (the rising rotation at the ground level) when it is either filled with debris or when it connects with the CENTER FUNNEL and fills with moisture. A tornado is actually backwards from what we observe it to be.

2.6 How can you see this in actual tornado pictures? We suggest picking up a copy of The National Audubon Society's Field Guide To North American Weather. Look at pages 209 through 214 for the six cell sequence of the formation of a tornado. These six cells are the best full view of the formation of a tornado we could find. We offer the first cell.

2.7 Most often, especially for those who chase tornadoes, the eyes are pointed to the sky. It makes sense to keep looking up when conditions in the sky will determine if a tornado is possible (most times) so we rely on Doppler Radar for atmospheric conditions. But it also pays a good deal of sense to look to the ground, as well. Tornadoes form at the ground and rise to meet the funnel coming from the clouds. Just like lighting, a tornado forms at the ground only after it is given the ability to do so by the conditions in the sky. But unlike lightning, the funnel cloud is not the strike, it is the hole in the middle of the strike.


2.8 So what causes a tornado? A cyclonic rotating very low pressure point at the ground. If it is not formed from a supercell it will be called a non-supercell tornado. If there is no cloud at all it will be called a dust devil. If it is over water it will be called a water-spout. If it is over steam it will be called a steam-devil. It does not matter what it is called. Names are given to the things observed to relate them to other things that are already understood. It is ALL caused by the same thing. Very low level ground pressure caused by tightly wound rotation.

2.9 The question then arises as to what is the cause of that rotation? Why does it turn into a small point of low pressure? Why does it rise up in a rotation? How does it form in the first place?

2.10 Therein lies the reason for the title of this paper. Foundational causes are those that are preceding the observational cause.




3.1 When a child shakes a tornado demonstration device (two, 2 liter soft drink bottles connected end to end and filled with water) the child will be able to see the center rotating violently. What causes that violent rotation? The child's shaking of the bottles from side to side.

And the violent 'tornado' is actually the empty middle of the rotating water in the bottle on top. But for the demonstration to actually work the bottles must come to a vertical halt. The system within the bottle must be permitted to act within itself. It draws in as it falls down the hole into the bottle beneath.


3.2 If the water were not able to fall into the bottle beneath there would be no 'tornado' to see quite in the same way. The hole in the middle would only be a depression and the water would rise at the top. Why? The reduced pressure at the point of the bottom of the top bottle sucks the center of the rotating water down into it. The rotation throws the water out in centripetal force. The hole left in the middle of the forces is what is observed to be the 'tornado'.

3.3 The same thing happens in the real world. The tornado funnel is actually the center of the rotation of air. It can be observed because it is filled with moisture. Where the air rotating around it, causing it, can not be seen until the air reaches the cloud base and itself begins to fill with moisture through the moisture being drawn down into it through the center rotating funnel.

3.4 The point then comes to the foundational cause of the ground rotation being so small and so fast as to result in the updraft of air having to do with the ground point more than with the temperature of the air.

3.5 Let us take it backwards from what is observed: A funnel cloud is observed to descend from the cloud base. What causes the funnel cloud to descent? It is the center of the rotation at ground level that has caused an updraft so that the pressure within the center of the updraft is lower than the pressure at the cloud base. This results from the centripetal force of the rotation pulling the center inwards (down) and dropping the pressure at the middle of the rotation.

3.6 The Bernoulli Principle points to the creation of a counterbalancing action caused by the speed of rotation at ground level, dropping the pressure in the middle of the rotation, which combined with the centripetal force of the rotation forces the air inwards to be counterbalanced by the internal forces of the lowering pressure which forces the air upwards (the ground stops a downward ejection) which in turn forces the centripetal action of the rising rotation to pull outwards to its extent which in turn opens the center of the rotation to a clearer path to the ground low pressure point which in turn raises the opening of the low pressure until it reaches a point midway between the cloud base and the ground whereby the pressure beneath the cloud base will begin to drop markedly thereby releasing the weakest part of the bottom of the cloud base to begin to fall into the vortex formed by the rising rotating winds. This cloud base being pulled into the vortex of rising winds is pulled at once down to the low ground pressure point and outward to the center extent of the rotating wind vortex. This is observed to be a dark mass and called a funnel when it is actually the opening within the funnel displayed due to its content of moisture versus the lower moisture laden ground updraft comprising the actual vortex.

3.7 In section 5.0 we will examine each of these foundations.

3.4 When a person empties a bath tub the water may rush down the drain causing a whirlpool to form at the drain. From the top, looking down it appears to be a hole in the middle of the rotating water. But if you could look up at it the appearance would be of a perfectly formed, round at the top and pointed at the bottom vortex. We've been looking up so long it is hard to comprehend that what we have called a tornado funnel is nothing at all but the hole in the center of the actual vortex.




4.1 From the perspective of a ground observer the funnel coming from the cloud base takes center stage. But it is only the actor. The play is what it acts in. And that play is the caused by the ground level rotation and low pressure point. There can be many such points within a storm system. And the stronger a central point is the more similar, but smaller points will form around it. When those smaller points form, small vortexes will be observed to rotate around the main ground based rotation. Air drawn to the rotation at ground level is met by air being drawn from a different angle and the convergence of the two will set up another smaller rotation.

4.2 Tornados have been known to pick up large articles and deposit them elsewhere, many feet or even miles away. When an object is caught in the updraft at the outer extent of the ground based vortex it rises up the shaft and is pulled toward the center as it corkscrews into the rotation. When it reaches the center funnel, the hole in the middle of the vortex, then the lowest pressure area in a mature tornado, it is caught in the tug-of-war with inverted-inward forces and inward rotation and suspends in the wall of the center funnel. When the tornado begins to weaken and the funnel begins to slide back up toward the cloud base the item will slip down the funnel until it reaches the point of release when its rotational force exceeds its inward force. It then falls to the ground. The funnel could shrink in width more than height and will be termed a 'rope'. The funnel that extends nearest the ground before it fills in again will deposit things much smoother.




5.1 Steps in the genesis of a tornado:


1 The Bernoulli Principle points to the creation of a counterbalancing action caused by the speed of rotation at ground level, dropping the pressure in the middle of the rotation,

Bernoulli's Principle, in physics, the concept that as the speed of a moving fluid (liquid or gas) increases, the pressure within that fluid decreases. Originally formulated in 1738 by the Swiss mathematician and physicist Daniel Bernoulli, it states that the total energy in a steadily flowing fluid system is a constant along the flow path. An increase in the fluid's speed must therefore be matched by a decrease in its pressure.[6] It originates from Bernoulli's Theorem, which is essentially a restatement of the Law of the Conservation of Energy. It is the same principle that governs airplane wing design and the throw of a curve ball.

In this case, we are speaking of a horizontal system with two escape routes. Up and out. Air rotating in increasing speeds has a middle. That middle will become the point of lowest pressure in the system. The faster the rotation the more it seeks to wind inward. The only form of escape is up.

2 which combined with the centripetal force of the rotation forces the air inwards

Outwards at this point is only up. With the winds rotating the upward movement is also rotating . This causes the observed spiraling of the wind upwards as it is displaced by the lowering pressure in the middle..

3 to be counterbalanced by the internal forces of the lowering pressure which forces the air upwards (the ground stops a downward ejection)

And according to Bernoulli leaves a lower pressure point within the center of the rotation which is proportional to the increase in speed of the contraction of the rotation.

4 which in turn forces the centripetal action of the rising rotation to pull outwards to its extent

The rising air loses momentum as it climbs and by slowing down it spreads out.

5 which in turn opens the center of the rotation to a clearer path to the ground low pressure point which in turn raises the opening of the low pressure until it reaches a point midway between the cloud base and the ground

Rotational Bernoulli Pressure decreases continue up the main vortex shaft until the center opening, observed as a young funnel, connects to the low pressure point at the ground whereby the vertical momentum of the low pressure is increased in magnitude.

6 whereby the pressure beneath the cloud base will begin to drop markedly thereby releasing the weakest part of the bottom of the cloud base to begin to fall into the vortex formed by the rising rotating winds.

The center weakest part of the cloud base is caught in the rotation and displays a funnel shape due to the inverse-square law.

7 This cloud base being pulled into the vortex of rising winds is pulled at once down to the low ground pressure point and outward to the center extent of the rotating wind vortex in proportion to its width.


Once again due to the inverse-square law.


This is observed to be a dark mass and called a funnel when it is actually the opening within the vortex displayed due to its content of moisture versus the lower moisture laden ground updraft comprising the actual vortex.



6.1 It is imperative that the definition of a tornado be changed to reflect the actual foundational causes of a tornado and to indicate that a tornado actually is:


A violently rotating column of air, ascendant from a ground cyclonic rotation, and usually observable by the formation of the internal funnel at the top-center of the main vortex.


6.2 It is imperative that the condition of 'official' tornado be changed to include any observed funnel as a tornado vortex must be in existence for a funnel to be present at all regardless of whether it reaches ground or not.

6.3 It is imperative that the myriad names given to describe tornadoes dependent upon their environment of genesis (water, gas, land, steam, etc.,) be eliminated in favor of calling a tornado a tornado at all times.

6.4 It is imperative that a world wide education process be undertaken to inform the public of the definition of a tornado and to encourage reporting of even the smallest tornado, as further research requires evidence of causal conditions for all sizes of tornado activity.

6.5 It is imperative that a new classification scheme be agreed upon to differentiate tornadoes within their own class of formation. This, in addition to the Fujita damage Scale. A suggestion is provided here: L CONDITION median funnel formation

image not displayed

6.6 Using this (or some other) scale will permit the study of tornadoes by their level of creation as well as by adding the Fujita Damage Scale in a [:] separation to denote events of specific magnitude as well as indicating their destructive results. It will provide a creation-result cause and effect scale by which future researchers can intelligently examine causative conditions and model variations thereof. A scale from 1:0 to 5:5 will provide lay person as well as meteorologists with invaluable information.

6.7 It is imperative that a sincere research and development effort be undertaken to exploit the predictive abilities of tornadoes through the observation of ground level cyclonic rotation events and the resulting Bernoulli pressure reductions associated with such events. There is great promise to model conditions of a geographic area to identify obstacles, land masses and normal weather patterns such as troughs and ridges associated with seasons and locations.

loud base contact with funnel and vortex combination



7.1 As Charles Doswell pointed out in the opening quotation of this paper, the laws of Fluid Dynamics, the study of pressures and forces exerted on liquids and gases leaves us with these two options:

"... the vortex either (a) is already present at the surface, or (b) wraps around itself, like a smoke ring."[1]

7.2 The reality is a combination of both. The vortex rises from the ground so it is already present at the surface. And it wraps around the descending funnel, which itself is the hole in the middle of the vortex.

7.3 The funnel dances from side to side as the momentum of the ground level cyclonic rotation does not always keep in step with the mid level atmospheric cloud cover. As the winds and drafts that create the ground cyclonic rotation shift and change so does the location of the center of its lowest point of pressure.

7.4 When such shifts and changes are at a breaking point the cyclonic rotation can split into one or more parts thereby splitting the center funnel into two tornado centers each within its own vortex..

7.5 When the center pressure point begins to rise, as the cyclonic rotation slows the center of the vortex, its funnel, begins its retreat, caused the rising winds from the ground cyclonic rotation weakening. It can happen quickly if the cyclonic rotation breaks up or it can happen slowly if the cyclonic rotation simply runs out of 'steam' or it can not happen for quite a long time. Ground based observations of causative winds and fronts and resulting pressures will lend predictive ability to the duration and intensity of tornadic activity.

7.6 Educating the public to the cause and effect of ground level cyclonic rotation and Bernoulli Pressure will help to identify more events as tornadic; the ones that pass into forgotten history yet precede larger events.

7.7 Changing the definition of a tornado and the issuance of warnings based upon the foundational causes of tornadoes will increase the lead time between audible warning and devastating loss of life.

7.8 Implementing a universal scale of the levels of tornadic formation and using that scale in conjunction with the Fujita Damage Scale will provide cause and effect relationship for the most destructive force on earth.


7.9 We can only hope.


Chapter 4


[1] The Skeptic's Dictionary
[2] The Placebo Prescription Margaret Talbot, New York Times Magazine, January 9, 2000, quoted in [1]
[3] The Skeptic's Dictionary
[4] The New York Times, Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth,
[5] Homeopathy: Merriam-Webster
[6] Against Depression, a Sugar Pill is hard to beat, Placebos Improve Mood, Change Brain Chemistry in Majority of Trials of Antidepressants By Shankar Vedantam Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, May 7, 2002; Page A01
[7] Placebo May Augment Effects of ADHD Meds Small Study Suggests Low-Dose Medications Helpful When Paired With Placebo By Sid Kirchheimer WebMD Medical News
[10] Listening to Prozac but Hearing Placebo: A Meta-Analysis of Antidepressant Medication, Irving Kirsch, Ph.D. University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT & Guy Sapirstein, Ph.D., Westwood Lodge Hospital, Needham, MA Prevention & Treatment, Volume 1, Article 0002a, posted June 26, 1998 Copyright 1998 by the American Psychological Association:


Chapter 5


"Strangers To Ourselves" Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious, Harvard University Press, 2002: © Timothy D. Wilson, Sherrell J. Aston Professor of Psychology and Chair, Department of Psychology, of the University of Virginia at Charlottesville.
[2] What You See, Is Not What Causes, What You See. Observational Illusion In "Antidepressants Grow New Brain Cells", Lee Kent Hempfling
[3] Modern Mysticism The Church of Science Soup, Lee Kent Hempfling
[4] Merriam-Webster
[5] The Unconscious 'You' May Be the Wiser Half, © Wall Street Journal, Sharon Begley:,,SB1030644674233767915.djm,00.html
[7] , look it up "artificial consciousness" exists in the mind of someone.
[8] Forget About Getting Up-Close With Your Unconscious Mind, (c) Wall Street Journal Sharon Begley,,SB1031254155453671355.djm,00.html
[9] [10] Now hear this: We've forgotten how to listen By Mary Carole McCauley of THE BALTIMORE SUN, as published at
[11] Science finds key to music By Richard Black BBC science correspondent
[12] Music Is Processed by a Cortical 'language'-network by Stefan Koelsch, Thomas C. Gunter and A. D. Friederici of the Max-Planck-Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience in Leipzig
[13] Music Lessons Help with Memory By Thomas Sexton, Psychology Today,
[14] Music, Mind, and Meaning by Marvin Minsky, Revised version of AI Memo No. 616, MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. An earlier published version appeared in Music, Mind, and Brain: The Neuropsychology of Music (Manfred Clynes, ed.) Plenum, New York, 1981, Publication Date: August 12, 2003
[17] Why the brain holds on to a tune



Chapter 6


As quoted in:



Chapter 7




Chapter 9


As quoted in: Hypnosis swings into mainstream of medicine, Doctors caution that there's much to learn, by Diane Evans © Beacon Journal, Tue, Oct. 14, 2003,


Chapter 10


Source: Press Release Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Stages of memory described in new study.



Chapter 11


About The Study:


"The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing" is published by EnticyPress at, a service of The Enticy Institute.


Chapter 14


[1] Genes' Sway Over IQ May Vary With Class Study: Poor More Affected by Environment, By Rick Weiss, Washington Post Staff Writer, Tuesday, September 2, 2003; Page A01




Chapter 15


Software engineers - the ultimate brain scientists? Part 1 By Bill Softky, ©The Register 17/10/2003



Chapter 16


© The Register 20/10/2003 19:28 GMT



Chapter 18

[1] National Mental Health Association:



Chapter 19










[9] On The States Of Energy, Gravity & The Exponential Universe.





Chapter 20



Chapter 21



Chapter 22


Research With Sea Slugs and Yeast May Explain How Long-Term Memories Are Stored, Sandra Blakeslee Copyright December 26, 2003 NYT


Chapter 23


Chapter 25


[ref1] Main Press Release


Chapter 26




Chapter 27




Chapter 29





Chapter 29


Chapter 30


Chapter 31







Chapter 32





Chapter 33




Chapter 34




[ref2] 'FDA Panel Backs Implant To Counter Depression But Questions Linger About Manufacturer Data' By Shankar Vedantam Washington Post Staff Writer, Wednesday, June 16, 2004; Page A03

[ref3] University of Toledo Libraries, Mental Health,

[ref4] Cigarette Smoking-Related Mortality Centers For Disease Control


Chapter 35


Photo Credit: National Audubon Society Field Guide To North American Weather. Photographed by David Hoadly who holds copyright to this photograph. Drawings made upon the photograph are only to indicate location of wind structure and are not to be construed as a claimed adaptation.


[1] Doswell, Charles A.: NOAA/ERL/National Severe Storms Laboratory*

Norman, OK. "What is a tornado."

* Disclaimer: This essay has not been reviewed by the scientific community and, therefore, can be said to be represent nothing more than a collection of my opinions. It certainly does not have (and I have not sought) the imprimatur of anyone in my official chain of command, and doesn't represent the position of NSSL.

[2] USATODAY : Project helps scientists understand tornadoes. September 26, 1996. The largest tornado field experiment ever staged, VORTEX was based at NOAA's National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL) in Norman, Okla., and jointly sponsored by NOAA and the National Science Foundation (NSF).

[3] Lundlum, David M.: Founder of WEATHERWISE magazine. Published in National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Weather, page 107, "TORNADOES"..

[4] OXFORD Concise Science Dictionary, published by Oxford University Press, Third Edition, page 734.

[5] Huschke, 1959: Glossary of Meteorology. Provided by [1] above.

[6] Encarta, Microsoft Corporation.



absolutist, 220

absurd, 61, 66, 84, 85, 86, 109, 203, 207, 215, 236, 237, 272, 279, 305, 326

abuse, 7, 128, 138

abusing, 12, 17

actions, 5, 70, 75, 76, 77, 94, 163, 203, 247, 261, 262, 282

adherence, 49

adrenergic hormones, 108

agents, 83, 84, 85, 86

aggressive, 27

Agonist, 289

algorithm, 180, 181, 195, 197, 329

Alkire, 270

Allegra, 140

Alta-vista, 22

American Journal of Psychiatry, 54

American Psychological Association, 64, 341

amitriptyline, 131

amnesia, 107, 108, 314

amoxapine, 131

amplifiers, 161

amplitude, 5, 8, 13, 15, 16, 23, 24, 25, 29, 33, 36, 38, 39, 46, 47, 50, 51, 59, 81, 92, 93, 94, 102, 108, 113, 117, 133, 134, 149, 163, 165, 167, 168, 177, 178, 179, 198

Amplitude, 116

amplitudes, 2, 3, 5, 12, 23, 25, 30, 31, 34, 36, 38, 50, 93, 94, 111, 127, 134, 135

amygdala, 108, 213

analgesia, 46

anatomy, 97

Anderson, 243, 247, 248

Anecdotal, 45

anesthetize, 135

anorexia nervosa, 195

antagonists, 289

antidepressants, 52, 53, 55, 63, 131, 132, 264, 321

anti-depressants, 57

anti-depressants, 264

Antidepressants, 52, 130, 131, 135, 341, 342

anti-hope, 8

Anti-Positive, 8, 94

anxiety, 96, 108, 147, 195, 196, 198, 226, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 322

anxious, 12, 232

APE, 23, 24, 94

architecture, 95, 96, 134, 192

Aristotle, ix, 114

arrogant ignorance, 183

art, 90, 95, 116, 153, 177, 181, 224, 323, 329

artificial, 63, 73, 96, 133, 166, 290, 291, 342

artificial agonist, 290

Artificial Intelligence, 97, 169, 184, 343

Asbjorn, 46

Ask Jeeves, 22

associate, 237, 292, 294, 295, 297, 314

Assumption, 173, 174

assumptions, 62, 72, 78, 103, 126, 155, 156, 160, 161, 166, 172, 173, 206, 214, 236, 238, 240, 246, 247, 248, 254, 261, 265, 288, 297, 307, 319

asthmatics, 45

Astrocyte, 23

astrology, 57

atheistic, 61

Attention deficit, 195

auditory, 82, 167, 180

aural, 14, 22, 27, 28, 31, 32, 34, 35, 78, 80, 94, 96, 103, 104, 116, 117, 147, 152, 168, 187, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 198, 200, 212, 213, 215, 218, 219, 222, 223, 224, 226, 248, 263, 264, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 293, 303

aural thinkers, 303

aurally, 25, 28, 121, 188, 222, 223, 224, 225

Ava Maria, 81

aware, 8, 14, 16, 17, 20, 32, 33, 37, 38, 51, 55, 57, 70, 74, 77, 78, 90, 91, 95, 98, 102, 106, 122, 127, 138, 146, 147, 149, 180, 188, 223, 229, 230, 231, 232, 247, 279, 280, 284, 285, 304, 305, 310, 320

awareness, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 33, 34, 36, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 79, 90, 113, 118, 120, 121, 198, 232, 234, 244, 248, 273, 275, 280, 309, 311

Awareness, vi, 1, 6, 8, 20, 112

Bacon, 203

balance, 27, 74, 91, 152, 193, 288, 291, 293, 294, 323

ball, vii, 76, 102, 146, 170, 177, 198, 336

Band-Aid, 230, 322

barbaric, 128, 135, 326

Barlow, 230, 231, 232, 233

Bayesian, 176

BBC, 80, 294, 295, 296, 342

Becker, 324

Begley, 72, 74, 342

behavior, 72, 97, 156, 162, 217, 236, 247, 251, 253, 297, 315

behaviorism, 70

behaviorists, 69

Belief, 55, 56

Benveniste, 58, 59

Bernoulli Pressure, 337, 340

Bernoulli Principle, 334, 335

beta blocker, 108

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 125, 344

bigoted, 41

bigotry, 111, 152, 172, 217, 304

Binet, 155

biochemistry, 97

biologists, 162, 171, 184

biorhythms, 58

Blakeslee, 240, 241, 346

blood, 17, 147, 212, 232, 237, 238, 297, 305, 307, 318, 322

Blue Cross Blue Shield, 138

Boston University, 314, 316

brain, ix, 2, 3, 12, 13, 14, 22, 26, 38, 47, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 62, 63, 65, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 109, 111, 113, 116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 125, 126, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 144, 146, 147, 152, 154, 155, 157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 184, 185, 187, 189, 190, 192, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 219, 220, 221, 222, 234, 236, 237, 238, 240, 241, 243, 244, 246, 247, 248, 250, 251, 252, 254, 259, 261, 262, 263, 264, 267, 268, 269, 270, 272, 274, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 285, 288, 289, 290, 292, 293, 297, 298, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 311, 314, 316, 319, 322, 323, 325, 328, 343, 345

brain research, ix

brains, 26, 28, 32, 34, 52, 54, 56, 75, 77, 78, 79, 84, 91, 98, 101, 121, 125, 126, 133, 155, 161, 164, 165, 166, 175, 181, 182, 185, 190, 191, 200, 201, 212, 213, 216, 218, 224, 259, 261, 262, 268, 269, 278, 293, 308

breath, 12, 80, 232

Brindley Foundation, 265

Bristol-Myers Squibb, 143

Broca's, 308

bronchiodilator, 45


Brown University, 46

BRS, 289

brute force, 62, 63, 147

Buckley, 221

Budweiser, 139

Bush, 218, 221

Cahill, 109

cat, 28, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 167, 272

cats, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 198, 219

Cats, 27, 28, 30

cause, 3, 6, 11, 15, 17, 18, 26, 37, 44, 50, 51, 53, 57, 60, 63, 65, 72, 81, 106, 107, 109, 113, 117, 120, 121, 127, 131, 135, 143, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 153, 166, 173, 175, 188, 189, 192, 196, 199, 204, 205, 206, 207, 211, 215, 220, 226, 230, 236, 237, 252, 253, 262, 263, 264, 274, 278, 280, 282, 285, 289, 294, 296, 298, 301, 302, 304, 305, 306, 309, 319, 322, 327, 330, 332, 333, 338, 340

causes, 15, 36, 38, 43, 44, 48, 50, 60, 62, 70, 73, 74, 77, 81, 97, 101, 107, 108, 114, 128, 131, 135, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 155, 161, 162, 179, 188, 189, 192, 196, 216, 219, 226, 230, 232, 234, 265, 267, 275, 278, 280, 288, 302, 322, 326, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 336, 337, 340

Celebrex, 139

cells, 58, 59, 76, 131, 132, 161, 252, 259, 261, 263, 264, 268, 289, 332

cellular, 13, 23, 240, 305

Central Texas Veterans Health Care System,, 265

Centrifugal, 22

centrifugal force, 22, 23

Centripetal, 22

centripetal force, 22, 23, 333, 334, 336

cerebral cortex, 261, 262, 263

Chalmers, 73

Chan, 83

chemotherapy, 323

chicken, 26

child, 35, 37, 116, 122, 125, 154, 155, 192, 199, 200, 230, 333

children, 50, 56, 117, 125, 140, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 195, 199, 200, 201, 272, 273, 275

Children, 56, 57, 200, 272, 275

Chinese University of Hong Kong, 83

chips, 58, 162

chiropractic, 58

circulation, 17, 329

Claritin, 140

clarity, 28, 30, 31, 79, 275, 281

clinical trial, 52, 53, 54, 56, 67, 134

clock, 20, 27, 34, 133, 182, 209, 210, 259

cognitive, 70, 73, 101, 102, 128, 153, 215, 222, 225, 237, 321

coherence, 33

cohesion, 23, 49

collusion, 175

color, 3, 4, 5, 45, 111, 112, 113, 114, 178, 208, 224

Columbia University, 131, 240

Combe, 308

combination, 4, 39, 61, 81, 101, 133, 229, 252, 274, 281, 303, 339

Comedy, 191

communicate, 36, 163, 181, 293, 294, 298

compare, 30, 31, 38, 57, 125, 126, 208, 237, 251, 306, 326

compliance, 114, 182

complimentary colors, 3

comprehend, 5, 32, 334

computer, 38, 58, 75, 86, 97, 125, 126, 127, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 176, 179, 182, 183, 184, 197, 237, 246, 274, 292, 302

Computer, 38, 146

Computers, 126

concentration, 241, 278, 288, 290, 299, 331

concept, 5, 9, 32, 38, 47, 66, 83, 84, 85, 96, 102, 108, 112, 146, 147, 152, 163, 175, 178, 182, 205, 206, 208, 209, 216, 217, 218, 219, 221, 222, 223, 225, 241, 267, 274, 296, 303, 336

conceptual, 192, 207, 215, 218, 219, 221, 223, 224, 303, 305, 330

condition, 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 40, 53, 57, 63, 74, 96, 103, 120, 121, 128, 135, 183, 189, 214, 215, 216, 222, 251, 263, 264, 283, 285, 291, 292, 298, 301, 304, 309, 310, 319, 320, 321, 326, 327, 337

confounding, 53

confused, 9, 20, 69, 73, 284

Confusing, 11

confusion, 5, 9, 35, 120, 293, 295

connections, 26, 27, 29, 63, 161, 162, 164, 165, 167, 189

conscious, 16, 19, 33, 56, 58, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 90, 102, 109, 117, 147, 187, 193, 203, 204, 206, 226, 227, 248, 285

consciously, 56, 69, 81, 123, 146, 232, 280, 282, 305

consciousness, 6, 12, 33, 69, 72, 73, 74, 120, 121, 122, 123, 203, 204, 205, 206, 214, 220, 226, 227, 244, 342

Consciousness, 73, 79, 204, 205, 226

consequence, 94, 172, 177, 217, 225, 227, 247, 293, 320, 322

consequences, 94, 199, 222, 226, 273, 278, 288, 318, 320, 322, 349

conservatism, 206, 214, 216, 217, 221, 222

conservative, 204, 207, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 226, 346

Constitution, 141

Contemplative, 19

control, 6, 7, 8, 14, 45, 52, 55, 64, 90, 91, 95, 104, 107, 118, 121, 122, 125, 154, 157, 172, 189, 190, 197, 198, 199, 200, 213, 214, 215, 217, 220, 229, 231, 232, 233, 234, 236, 237, 247, 251, 252, 253, 254, 262, 264, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 289, 291, 295, 298, 302, 303, 305, 310, 311, 312, 316, 326

controlling, 9, 12, 95, 104, 122, 164, 182, 216, 232, 244, 252, 309, 310

controversial, 53, 64, 154, 308

copycat drugs, 142

cortical, 82

cosmological constant, 24

cosmology, 24, 25

Cosmology, 24

CPU, 161, 162

creativity, 79, 95, 116

creator, 43, 44

crowd, 5, 267

cry, 11, 20

crying, 11, 12, 14, 311

culture, 61, 116, 117, 140, 172, 220

Cummins, 321

curious, 19

Cyberonics, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 348

Damaged, 20

Dartmouth College, 237

data, 38, 46, 63, 72, 82, 121, 167, 172, 176, 178, 182, 256, 257, 259, 262, 263, 270, 274, 319, 325, 326, 349

Deadwyler, 250, 251, 253

Dean, 218

decay, 29, 38, 51, 117

deception, 9, 34, 142

Deception, i, iii, ix

decohere, 33, 94

deduction, 62, 73, 111, 167, 168, 178, 264, 267, 274, 294

deductive, 111, 115, 134

dendritic, 256, 257

depressed, 19, 53, 64, 144, 263, 264, 296, 321

Depressed, 46, 262, 263

depression, 7, 52, 63, 91, 96, 103, 122, 128, 131, 134, 140, 144, 147, 195, 196, 198, 229, 233, 234, 248, 262, 264, 273, 280, 292, 296, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 333, 344

Depression, vii, viii, 134, 195, 228, 233, 261, 262, 317, 326, 341, 348

Descartes, 204

desire, 14, 25, 37, 40, 53, 56, 157, 184, 188, 215, 222

disease, 47, 57, 58, 62, 64, 65, 181, 189, 195, 264, 305, 322

diverse, 209, 211

DNA, 25, 29, 120, 296

dog, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 94, 199

Dogmatism, 214, 215

dogs, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 102, 196, 197, 198, 199

Dogs, 27, 28, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 41

Dolan, 106, 108

dolphins, 26

Domestication, 31

dominance, 22, 23, 27, 28, 30, 31, 49, 61, 72, 94, 95, 96, 153, 188, 200, 212, 213, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 281, 282, 284, 293

dominant, 6, 7, 9, 12, 28, 35, 79, 94, 96, 98, 116, 122, 152, 163, 188, 191, 192, 198, 199, 200, 220, 223, 224, 225, 226, 243, 261, 282, 283, 284

dopamine, 288, 292, 293, 294, 298, 348

Doppler, 51, 332

Doswell, 330, 339, 349

Dr. Phil, 101, 103, 104, 187, 188, 189, 193

Dr. Phillip C. McGraw, vii, 186, 187

Dr. Walter A. Brown, 46

drug, 46, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 62, 63, 108, 134, 135, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 289, 324

Duke University, 80

earworms, 98, 99, 103

ECT, 321

Edwards, 141, 142, 143

Effexor, 54

Efficiency, 167, 179, 269

Eichenbaum, 314

Einstein, 203, 208, 216

electrochemical, 162, 171

electro-convulsive, 321, 325

Electromagnetic, 24

electromagnetic charge, 61

electromagnetic spectrum, 43

Eli Lilly and Co, 131

Ellenberg, 324, 325

email, 5, 112

emerge, 13, 19, 79, 97, 98, 113

emotion, 11, 13, 107, 108, 109, 213, 230, 263

emotional, 11, 14, 15, 19, 94, 96, 97, 106, 108, 109, 195, 196, 199, 213, 214, 219, 220, 253, 261, 262, 273, 304

emotionally, 25, 106, 107, 108, 187, 195

emotions, 13, 72, 97, 101, 106, 107, 109, 153, 154, 157, 199, 213, 214, 218, 220, 230, 262, 311

empirical, 69

endorphins, 289

energy, 23, 24, 29, 47, 50, 58, 269, 336


enticypress, 104, 177, 184, 198, 344

EnticyPress, iv, 208, 210, 211, 257, 259, 344, 346

EnticyPress.Com, 208, 210, 211

environment, 7, 11, 20, 35, 37, 41, 48, 81, 96, 152, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 220, 225, 281, 323, 338

Environment, 154, 157, 345

environments, 35, 190

epilepsy, 320, 323

epiphenomenal, 71

equality, 2, 49, 188, 198, 210, 218

essentialism, 106, 113, 117

Essentialism, 111, 112, 115

exclusions, 27

existence, 26, 43, 48, 61, 90, 171, 172, 203, 204, 243, 272, 315, 318, 338

Experience, 57

experiences, 14, 127, 225, 244, 282

exponential, 28, 39, 47, 48, 49, 86, 88, 89, 179, 211

expulsion, 23, 133

eye, 2, 11, 17, 76, 173, 180, 268

eyes, 3, 4, 19, 26, 76, 103, 112, 117, 229, 281, 293, 324, 332

faith, 44, 47

FDA, viii, 54, 55, 138, 141, 142, 317, 318, 320, 321, 322, 325, 348

fear, 35, 49, 70, 213, 215, 217, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233

Federalist Society, 141

feeling, 9, 11, 19, 20, 35, 40, 45, 71, 78, 135, 144, 157, 188, 199, 229, 284

Feldman, 157

female, 14, 19, 28, 35, 40, 107, 188, 192, 200, 212, 213, 282, 293, 294

females, 190, 191, 192, 193, 283, 284, 293

feminine, 192

fixation, 15

Flanagan, 75, 76, 77

flawed, 46, 112, 156, 214, 246, 247, 248, 274, 284, 295, 318, 326

Fluency, 278

Fluid dynamics, 329

fluoxetine, 131

fMRI, viii, 3, 163, 168, 212, 236, 237, 238, 265, 266, 268, 280, 296, 297, 305, 306, 307, 308, 322

Focal point, 31

Food and Drug Administration, 52, 138, 141, 142, 143, 319

Fortin, 314

forward engineering, 165

Foster, 259

Fowler, 323

Franklin, 138, 139, 140

frequencies, 26, 80, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 127, 198, 211

frequency, 16, 25, 26, 29, 33, 34, 71, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 148, 163, 165, 167, 177, 179, 189, 198, 209, 210, 211

Freud, 69, 72

Freudian, 69

Friede, 141

Friederici, 82, 343

frontal lobe, 267

function, ix, 2, 58, 65, 72, 73, 74, 75, 81, 86, 88, 92, 94, 95, 96, 103, 106, 117, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 162, 165, 171, 174, 177, 178, 181, 195, 203, 204, 206, 210, 212, 213, 216, 219, 223, 234, 241, 250, 252, 253, 256, 257, 264, 269, 278, 283, 290, 292, 301, 304, 305, 308, 309, 314, 315, 316, 325

fundamental, 48, 50, 181, 182, 183, 307

funnel, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 337, 338, 339

funny, 20, 22, 36, 70, 183

Gabrieli, 243

Gall, 306, 307, 309, 322

gay, 213

gender, 28, 147, 190, 191, 192, 200, 270

genders, 28, 32

gene, 157, 288, 294, 296, 297, 298

genes, 152, 154, 155, 156, 158

Genes, vii, 151, 154, 344

genetics, 120, 152, 153, 156, 157

genius, 171, 183

German, 58, 98, 104, 262, 263

Ginns, 292

Glaser, 206, 218, 221

glia, 23, 24

God, 44, 61, 70

Goldberg, 221

Golf, 191

Google, 22

Googlism, 73

Gore, 218

Gotzsche, 46

grand unified theory, 43

gray matter, 267, 269, 270

guilt, 11

Gunter, 82, 343

habit, 30, 305, 309, 310

Haddock, 221

Hahnemann, 58, 65, 324

Haier, 268, 269, 270

Hampson, 250, 251, 253

Hannity, 218

hardwire, 41

hardwired, 16, 29, 36, 167

Harkin, 142

Harvard Medical School, 125

Harvard Mental Health Letter, 121

Harvard University Press, 69, 342

hate, 6, 7, 9, 41

Hawking, 216

Hawkins, 160, 168, 183

Head, 155, 270

Head Start, 155

health, 48, 58, 65, 129, 138, 139, 195, 196, 294, 295, 297, 341, 348, 349

HealthDayNews, 106

hear, 19, 25, 81, 84, 114, 115, 118, 140, 265, 278, 291, 342

heart, 11, 19, 220


Hempel, 66

Hen, 131, 132

Hicks, 191, 265

hippocampus, 244, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 308, 314, 316

Hitler, 113, 217, 218

Hockenberry, 139, 140

Holcomb, 265

hole, 11, 13, 14, 15, 82, 146, 233, 234, 284, 332, 333, 334, 335, 339

Homeopathic, 47

homeopathy, 57, 58, 59, 64, 65, 66

Homeopathy, vi, 42, 47, 48, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 341

Homo Sapiens, 60, 78, 86

Homo-Sapien, 28

hope, 7, 8, 83, 113, 135, 160, 254, 278, 295, 296, 297, 325, 326, 340

Hrobjartsson, 46

human, 7, 14, 18, 22, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 40, 41, 48, 49, 59, 69, 74, 76, 77, 80, 82, 87, 89, 91, 92, 101, 102, 104, 107, 116, 117, 118, 121, 156, 168, 172, 188, 191, 198, 199, 200, 211, 212, 215, 216, 218, 220, 222, 223, 225, 227, 233, 240, 243, 247, 250, 252, 253, 254, 267, 272, 274, 294, 298, 304, 309, 314

Human beings, 22, 143

Human Energy Systems Laboratory,, 58

Humans, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 102, 191, 200

hurt, 13, 20, 298

hyperactivity, 195, 291

HyperDictionary, 222

Hypnosis, 120, 123, 344

hz, 179, 210

idiotic, 128

Iglesia, 259

ignorance, ix, 74, 103, 129, 152, 175, 183, 217, 225, 238, 240, 250, 251, 252

Ignorance, vi, vii, 47, 100, 186

ignorant, 48, 66, 117, 129, 217, 238, 268, 319

illness, 44, 45, 65, 195, 321, 323

illogical, 135, 195

illusion, 71, 83, 120, 132, 178, 179

immune, 65

Imperial College London, 259

implant, 318, 320, 324

incorrect assumption, 250


information, 27, 58, 70, 80, 82, 104, 126, 141, 142, 176, 180, 184, 218, 219, 251, 256, 261, 263, 268, 269, 279, 315, 338

innate, 280, 306

inputs, 79, 81, 162, 165, 167, 168, 173, 176, 177, 178, 180, 209, 211, 234, 256, 257, 263, 304

Insel, 132

Instinct, 22

intellect, 24, 28, 31, 36, 41, 49, 158, 166, 236, 267, 268

intellectual, 33, 49, 94, 155, 221, 224

Intelligence, 121, 132, 197, 267, 269

intensity, 11, 31, 264, 329, 340

interaction, 5, 14, 94, 152, 154, 192, 284, 305

interactions, 59, 157, 237, 278

inter-neuron, 23

interpretation, 5, 176

interpreted, 8, 267

intestines, 45

invariant transformations, 176

inverse-square law, 337

IQ, vii, 24, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 182, 267, 268, 269, 270, 344

Iraq, 218


jealousy, 7

Jews, 113

Johansson, 76

Johnson, 218

Jost, 206

Journal Nature, 256, 259

Journal of Neuroscience, 80, 308

Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research., 278

Jung, 270

Kandel, 240, 241

Kellaris, 98, 101, 102, 103

Khan, 53, 54

kidnapping, 17

King's College of London, 158

Knots Landing, 285

knowing, 6, 8, 34, 84, 116, 127, 164, 173, 174, 233, 247, 251, 283, 295, 315

knowledge, 5, 6, 8, 17, 18, 31, 41, 48, 49, 53, 57, 60, 62, 69, 73, 95, 113, 126, 133, 146, 152, 161, 164, 165, 166, 175, 180, 184, 185, 190, 191, 197, 199, 200, 201, 224, 229, 230, 236, 248, 270, 274, 282, 283, 284, 319, 328

Knowledge, 48

Koelsch, 82, 343

Kruglanski, 206

language, 5, 19, 82, 181, 188, 268, 269, 278, 279, 280, 283, 294, 309, 343

laugh, 20

Laughren, 54

Law of the Conservation of Energy, 336

Lee Kent Hempfling, iii, iv, 132, 342

lesbian, 213

Leuchter, 54

Lewontin, 156

liberal, 204, 207, 214, 216, 218, 220, 221, 222, 226

Liberal vs. Conservative, 206

life, ii

Light, 3, 20, 51, 112, 174

Limbaugh, 217, 218

linguistic, 82

Lipitor, 140, 141

Liu, 292

logic, 43, 52, 81, 97, 111, 112, 115, 125, 162, 163, 164, 175, 215, 219, 226, 265, 267, 273, 318, 326

logical, 11, 55, 60, 62, 106, 111, 116, 120, 147, 148, 150, 161, 163, 164, 172, 173, 175, 206, 207, 210, 212, 216, 320

long-term, 2, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 40, 56, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 94, 95, 96, 101, 102, 103, 104, 107, 109, 121, 122, 127, 133, 135, 143, 146, 147, 179, 182, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 208, 209, 211, 213, 214, 217, 219, 220, 222, 226, 229, 231, 232, 233, 240, 243, 244, 246, 247, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 261, 262, 263, 264, 272, 273, 274, 275, 280, 281, 282, 284, 285, 294, 295, 296, 298, 302, 303, 305, 309, 310, 311, 318, 321, 322

Long-term, 7, 19, 74, 78, 79, 80, 90, 95, 96, 98, 101, 211, 212, 213, 214, 233, 264, 275, 281, 282, 298, 302

long-term memory, 16, 17, 31, 40, 108, 231, 244, 247, 251, 252, 261, 262, 264, 274, 275, 280

loop, 6, 7, 8, 15, 16, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 121, 146, 209, 296, 302, 309, 311

loopable, 29

loops, 7, 15, 26, 29, 32, 33, 34, 98

love, 11, 13, 16, 20, 78, 220, 304

machine, 45, 147

Major Depressive Disorder, 321

maladies, 15, 128

Malcolm, 206

male, 14, 28, 31, 34, 35, 188, 191, 192, 200, 212, 213, 215, 223, 283, 284, 293

males, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 215, 283, 284, 293

Malone, 324, 325

Manhattan Project, 169

Marketing, 117

masculine, 191, 200

Mataix-Cols, 303

Materialism, 204, 205

mathematics, 50, 90, 175, 268

Max-Planck-Institute, 82, 343

Mayberg, 55

McCullough, 232, 233

McGraw, 187

McGuffee, 324, 325

MDD, 261, 321

measurement, 43, 46, 50, 51, 61, 190, 330

mechanism, 65, 66, 90, 178, 243, 247, 248, 289, 294, 295, 330

medication, 45, 51, 53, 56, 60, 63, 65, 264, 321

Mel, 256, 257

memories, 12, 14, 19, 32, 33, 38, 72, 74, 78, 104, 108, 121, 125, 126, 127, 128, 146, 178, 233, 240, 241, 243, 244, 247, 248, 250, 253, 254, 262, 272, 310

memory, 2, 6, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 58, 59, 63, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 83, 84, 86, 87, 89, 90, 94, 95, 96, 98, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 120, 121, 125, 126, 127, 128, 131, 133, 134, 143, 146, 178, 179, 181, 182, 188, 191, 192, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 222, 226, 229, 231, 232, 233, 240, 241, 243, 244, 246, 247, 248, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 261, 262, 263, 264, 267, 268, 269, 270, 272, 273, 274, 275, 280, 281, 282, 285, 296, 298, 302, 303, 304, 305, 309, 310, 311, 314, 315, 344

Memory, vi, vii, viii, 36, 58, 68, 102, 105, 106, 108, 109, 124, 125, 127, 146, 209, 241, 249, 250, 259, 274, 275, 313, 314, 343

men, 107, 187, 195, 219

mental, 38, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 97, 98, 101, 103, 104, 107, 128, 134, 188, 189, 192, 195, 196, 199, 200, 206, 214, 217, 219, 227, 229, 230, 236, 237, 240, 241, 248, 273, 283, 294, 295, 297, 298, 302, 303, 309, 320, 323

mentalism, 69

Merck and Co, 143

Mercola, 138

merge, 38, 61

Merriam-Webster, 72, 172, 173, 177, 341, 342

Microglia, 23


mind, 17, 19, 45, 46, 48, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 81, 83, 97, 106, 111, 121, 178, 196, 204, 230, 306, 309, 324, 342

MIND, 323

Minsky, 83, 84, 85, 343

mirror-movement, 76, 77

misinterpretations, ix

misunderstandings, 41

mob rule, 220

molecular biology, 97

Money Penny, 84

Monk, 301

Monkey, ix

monkeys, 76, 288, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296

mood disorders, 294, 295, 297

morals, 18

motor activity, 304

MRI, 270


multiplicative inverse, 51

muscle, 6, 32

music, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 90, 95, 117, 181, 282, 285, 342

Mussolini, 217, 218

mysteries, 120, 146, 160, 172, 240

mysterious, 166, 259

mysticism, 24, 60, 97, 204, 214, 220

Mysticism, ix, 342

narcissism, 16

National Audubon Society's Field Guide To North American Weather, 332

National Institute for Health Care Management,, 138

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 270

National Institute of Mental Health, 125, 131, 132, 254, 288

National Review Online, 221

National Science Foundation, 125, 349

Nature Neuroscience, 256

NBC's Dateline, 138

negative, 7, 24, 43, 50, 60, 128, 221, 237


nerves, 97, 168

nervousness, 280

Neural Networks, 160, 177

neuron, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 36, 108, 131, 132, 133, 134, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167, 168, 181, 212, 240, 241, 256, 257, 261, 270, 297, 326

neuronic, 25

neurons, 23, 26, 27, 29, 81, 132, 133, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 171, 181, 256, 257, 261, 264, 270

Neurontin, 140

Neuropsychology, 288, 295, 343

neuroscientists, 80, 104, 162, 163, 183

neurotransmitters, 289

Neutronics Dynamic System, 47

New York Times, 213, 214, 218, 231, 240, 341

news, 18, 97, 171, 184, 225, 238, 243, 250, 261, 343, 344, 346, 347, 348

Newsweek, 222

NIMH, 288, 295

Nobel Prize, 240

non-zero, 2, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 23, 24, 34, 74, 75, 77, 121

norepinephrine, 131

normal, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 35, 41, 63, 131, 134, 135, 140, 150, 166, 192, 193, 210, 213, 214, 219, 220, 230, 231, 245, 261, 262, 263, 264, 283, 294, 301, 314, 316, 327, 338

Normal, 18, 41, 192, 284

observable, 22, 49, 50, 55, 60, 72, 81, 95, 97, 114, 125, 162, 165, 167, 190, 213, 267, 297, 301, 302, 331, 337

observation, 3, 44, 51, 60, 61, 62, 74, 75, 76, 77, 106, 115, 153, 166, 177, 178, 187, 188, 203, 205, 206, 207, 208, 215, 221, 241, 267, 268, 269, 275, 279, 280, 296, 299, 301, 305, 331, 338

observational, 80, 84, 86, 97, 166, 168, 173, 174, 261, 332

observations, 46, 60, 62, 163, 205, 206, 208, 211, 265, 339

obsessive-compulsive disorder, 294, 295, 297, 301

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, viii, 296, 298, 300, 310

OCD, 296, 301, 302, 303, 304

offspring, 38, 50

Ohio State University, 272

ohrwurm, 98, 104

Oligodendroglia, 23

opinion, 13, 18, 160, 161, 168, 171, 175, 345

opposing charge, 23, 60

opposing charge energy states, 23

opposing charge state, 23

opposite, 2, 12, 18, 32, 192, 208, 214, 230, 231, 250, 251, 268, 316

opposites, 1

Oprah, 193

output, 2, 25, 29, 36, 37, 77, 90, 95, 96, 102, 109, 126, 133, 134, 162, 163, 166, 167, 169, 174, 176, 179, 180, 197, 199, 208, 209, 210, 211, 213, 229, 234, 269, 280, 283, 284, 291, 292, 298

pain, 15, 32, 45, 46, 195, 215, 218, 245, 289, 293, 298

Papert, 84

paradigm, 49

paranormal, 44

parent, 13, 39, 125, 230

paresis, 189

Parke-Davis, 140

particle, 24

pathway, 2, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 63, 79, 102, 133, 134, 149, 168, 200, 209, 261, 264, 270

Paxil, 52, 54, 140

PE, 23, 24, 61, 94

People, 18, 55, 95, 150, 224, 264, 296, 320

PepsiCo, 139

perceiver, 12, 111

perception, ix, 2, 3, 81, 82, 108, 111, 113, 114, 184, 190, 196, 203, 214, 226, 251, 264, 273, 302, 304

Perception, i, iii, vi, ix, 110, 111, 112, 113

peripheral, 31, 78

perspective, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 17, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 83, 111, 126, 146, 148, 149, 150, 161, 174, 176, 178, 190, 203, 206, 207, 208, 209, 212, 218, 219, 226, 227, 281, 293, 331, 335

perspectives, 48, 49, 61, 161, 190, 311

Petersen, 138

pets, 31, 34

Pfzier, 140

pharmaceutical companies, 138, 139

pharmaceutical industry, 132

phenomenon, 51, 75

philosophical, 111

phonological, 280

Phrenology, 236, 306, 308, 322, 323

physics, 22, 24, 43, 65, 205, 335

Physics, 38

physiology, 97

piano, 25, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 127, 128, 211

pitches, 80

placebo, 44, 45, 46, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 108, 319, 341

placebo effect, 45, 46, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 63, 64, 65, 66, 108, 320

Placebos, 45, 341

plasticity, 240

point, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 23, 28, 31, 45, 64, 73, 98, 141, 164, 171, 175, 187, 190, 198, 205, 226, 229, 241, 256, 263, 267, 290, 292, 294, 296, 303, 322, 328, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 339

Poirazi, 257

political, 18, 153, 157, 206, 214, 218, 221, 222, 227

politics, ix, 113, 203, 217, 346

polling, 18

Polsky, 256

positive, 7, 24, 43, 50, 52, 54, 60, 61, 237, 291, 292

post-traumatic stress, 128, 248

poverty, 7, 155

Pravachol, 140

prayer, 44

predictable, 49, 254, 318

prefrontal lobe, 55

prejudice, 13, 236

prescriptions, 52, 138

pressure, 23, 26, 83, 168, 212, 263, 278, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339

Prilosec, 140

primary, 4, 27, 195, 204, 212, 225, 226, 269

prion, 241

process, 3, 6, 8, 16, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 46, 48, 49, 64, 65, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 77, 79, 84, 86, 90, 101, 102, 103, 104, 107, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 121, 122, 125, 126, 132, 133, 134, 135, 141, 146, 147, 148, 149, 166, 167, 168, 173, 174, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 190, 196, 197, 198, 199, 209, 210, 211, 212, 219, 223, 226, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 238, 244, 246, 247, 251, 252, 256, 257, 259, 262, 268, 270, 274, 276, 280, 281, 283, 284, 285, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 301, 303, 305, 309, 314, 316, 322, 329, 338

processing, 2, 6, 7, 27, 47, 53, 56, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 95, 96, 101, 102, 103, 108, 120, 121, 122, 125, 126, 127, 128, 134, 147, 152, 168, 172, 173, 174, 176, 179, 180, 181, 183, 184, 190, 191, 192, 197, 198, 199, 209, 212, 222, 231, 233, 234, 240, 244, 246, 247, 248, 252, 264, 268, 270, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 298, 303, 305, 309

procrastinating, 288, 293

Procreation, 22

Procter & Gamble, 142

Professional School of Psychology, 232

programmers, 169

progression, 25, 28, 38, 47, 48, 49, 63, 146, 148, 175, 179

progressions, 50, 51, 148

propranolol, 108

Prozac, 52, 54, 131, 140, 341

psychiatric, 54, 96, 101, 104, 135, 189, 319, 320

psychiatric disorders, 54, 189

Psychiatrists, 62, 189, 320

psychiatry, 54, 56, 58, 103, 125, 135, 189, 214, 262, 265

Psychiatry, 97, 128, 158, 188, 301, 303, 318, 320, 326, 327

psychoanalytic, 71

psychological, 45, 70, 96, 128, 214, 221, 230, 237, 306, 307

Psychological Science, 272

Psychologists, 58, 62, 221

psychology, 58, 69, 70, 71, 156, 157, 188, 214, 221, 230, 232, 243, 306

psychotherapy, 45, 321

PTSD, 128

pulsed, 25, 27, 101, 127, 133, 149

pulses, 26, 27, 85, 133, 162, 163, 164, 168, 181

puppies, 38

Q, ii, 20, 84

Quadra-Pedal, 28

quantum, 24, 60, 205

Queen's University, 75

race, 152, 153, 190, 215, 236, 237

racial, 236, 237, 238

racism, 111, 154, 236

Radio, 218

random, 46, 162, 163, 175, 182, 205

randomness, 163, 175, 205

range, 12, 26, 27, 87, 163, 210, 284, 315

Rasmussen, 330

rats, 131, 250, 251, 288, 314, 315, 316

Rats, vii, 249, 251, 253

reactions, 11, 40, 46, 63, 78, 94, 198, 214, 262, 282, 302, 311

reactive, 35, 101, 133, 220, 252, 253, 259

Reagan, 217, 218

reality, 3, 9, 15, 35, 47, 51, 53, 60, 64, 79, 90, 111, 112, 113, 114, 135, 153, 172, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 212, 214, 215, 217, 219, 220, 221, 225, 226, 227, 264, 274, 293, 298, 302, 304, 311, 319, 323, 339

Reality, vi, 110, 112, 113, 114, 203, 226

realization, 2, 8, 49, 102, 223, 226

reception, 112, 115, 199

receptors, 3, 112, 211, 289

recovered, 19

reductionist, 71

Redwood Neuroscience Institute, 160, 168, 171, 173, 183

reflected light, 3, 112


regression, 46, 320

Reinberg, 106

rejected, 4

rejection, 3, 59, 69, 113, 114, 199, 206, 207, 318

relationship, 2, 23, 59, 83, 94, 139, 279, 340

religion, 43, 44, 49, 60, 61, 71

Religion, 43, 44, 49

religions, 43, 72

remember, 12, 20, 32, 106, 115, 168, 209, 220, 243, 244, 246, 252, 253, 262, 275, 312


repetition, 18, 30, 40, 86, 101, 126, 148, 233, 253, 284, 291, 292, 308, 309

resolution, 27, 28, 30, 31, 79, 122, 166, 176, 191

Reuters, 131, 132

revolution, 69

Reward System, 289

rhinal cortex, 292, 293, 294

rhythm, 79, 85, 86

Richeson, 237, 238

Richmond, 288, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296

ridiculous, 16, 17, 44, 254, 322

Roman Catholic Church,, 224


root cause, 8, 148

Rotman Research Institute, 55

Rush, 217, 218, 322, 324, 325, 326

Russek, 58

San Fransisco Gate, 221

Satellite, 23

Scarr, 156

Schiller, 256

schizophrenia, 294, 295, 297

Schizophrenia, 264, 297

scholars, 43, 154

school, 19, 50, 83, 153, 195, 199

Schwann, 23

Schwartz, 58, 80, 81

science, 24, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 55, 59, 60, 62, 65, 66, 71, 73, 75, 83, 86, 97, 98, 101, 111, 115, 116, 117, 120, 125, 128, 132, 135, 140, 160, 161, 163, 165, 166, 168, 176, 177, 189, 197, 205, 214, 216, 218, 225, 238, 241, 248, 265, 279, 288, 294, 299, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 318, 320, 322, 323, 326, 342, 344, 346, 348

Science of Consciousness, 74

scientific, 44, 45, 48, 57, 65, 66, 70, 71, 76, 152, 205, 263, 285, 298, 319, 323, 324, 349

scientists, 43, 47, 52, 54, 72, 76, 104, 115, 120, 125, 129, 131, 153, 158, 165, 166, 167, 168, 197, 213, 216, 218, 221, 225, 236, 237, 238, 240, 262, 288, 294, 295, 296, 301, 303, 345, 349

Scott & White Hospital, 265

Seinfeld, 221

self, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 30, 34, 69, 70, 74, 75, 77, 79, 83, 90, 95, 102, 111, 128, 147, 153, 198, 201, 219, 222, 223, 262, 272, 273, 275, 309, 311

sense, 2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 16, 58, 65, 79, 83, 85, 90, 97, 102, 115, 116, 117, 161, 165, 166, 168, 174, 175, 179, 181, 183, 198, 200, 201, 204, 219, 262, 272, 273, 284, 288, 294, 315, 329, 332

sensors, 26, 31, 34, 78, 113, 174, 176

sensory input, 27, 81

Sept. 11, 216

serotonin, 54, 131

serotonin reuptake, 54

sexual, 144, 200

Sexual Preference, 191, 200

shaking, 91, 280, 333

Sheehan, 139

short-term, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 28, 31, 32, 33, 37, 41, 56, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 90, 91, 95, 96, 98, 102, 103, 104, 107, 109, 120, 121, 122, 127, 128, 135, 147, 152, 179, 187, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 197, 198, 199, 200, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 219, 220, 226, 229, 231, 232, 233, 234, 244, 246, 247, 250, 251, 253, 254, 261, 262, 264, 270, 273, 274, 275, 276, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 296, 298, 305, 309, 310, 311

side effects, 56, 142, 144, 321

sigmoidoscope, 45

simultaneous, 162, 184, 304

singularity, 43, 44, 49, 50, 146

skepticism, 48, 56

Skeptic's Dictionary, 45, 57, 341

Skin color, 4

Slater, 231, 233

sleep, 29, 34, 82, 126, 127, 128

Sloutsky, 272, 273, 274

Smart, 205

smell, 168, 212, 263, 315

social psychology, 70

society, 24, 33, 80, 219, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 304

socioeconomic, 156, 157

Softky, 160, 161, 166, 167, 168, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 179, 182, 183, 185, 345

software, 33, 160, 161, 171, 172, 173, 175, 176, 179, 180, 181, 182, 184, 185, 195, 205

soldiers, 33, 102, 197

sources, 50, 115, 169

species, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 40, 86, 89, 91, 191, 192, 198, 210, 215, 223, 227

spectrum, 3, 43, 94, 111, 156, 166, 198

Speech, 80, 278

spine, 15

spiritual, 43, 205

spookiness, 60

Spurzheim, 309

St. John's wort, 53

Stanford University, 157, 206, 243

stealing, 17, 291

stereotypes, 70, 72, 180, 218

stimulation, 14, 25, 81, 188, 319, 322, 325

Stimuli, 166

stimulus, 30, 133, 273, 274, 278, 280, 295

string, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 83, 133, 198, 252

strings, 29

stupid, 84, 101, 103, 129, 187, 238

stupidity, 129, 158, 216

Stutter, 278

stutterers, 278, 282

stuttering, 278, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285

Stuttering, viii, 277, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285

subconscious, 75, 78

subiculum, 250, 251, 252, 254

submission, 61

submissive, 12, 192

Suicide, 196

Sulloway, 206

supercell, 332

suprachiasmatic nucleus., 259

switches, 161

synapse, 23, 24, 36, 63, 131, 133, 134, 164, 240, 241, 264, 296, 323, 326

synapses, 134, 168, 240, 241, 264, 290, 291

Synchronize, 135

synchronized, 259

syndromes, 301

system, 6, 15, 16, 22, 23, 27, 34, 36, 38, 47, 49, 54, 58, 59, 65, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 81, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 114, 117, 120, 121, 134, 142, 160, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 174, 176, 178, 179, 181, 182, 200, 217, 221, 238, 247, 248, 269, 281, 282, 290, 291, 298, 306, 309, 327, 333, 335, 336

talent, 79, 96

taste, 2, 27, 30, 168, 212, 263

tear, 11

tears, 11, 17, 19

Technion Medical School, 256

temperature, 26, 114, 212, 263, 333

temptation, 33

Terror, 215, 216

Thalamus, viii, 260, 261

The Brain is a Wonderful Thing, 12, 208, 212, 316

The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing, ix, 47, 54, 59, 61, 74, 87, 94, 98, 104, 132, 134, 135, 172, 188, 198, 200, 234, 254, 257, 259, 265, 270, 311, 314, 327, 329, 344

The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing", ix

The Enticy Institute, iii, iv, 161, 172, 182, 184, 200, 316, 327, 344

The Health Gazette, 66

The Human Brain Cafe, 177, 181

The Register, 160, 171, 183, 345

The Royal Society, 59

Theodore and Vada Stanley Foundation, 265

theory of evolution, 203

therapeutic, 52, 64

therapist, 45, 187, 232

therapy, 45, 52, 55, 189, 232, 294, 296, 320, 321, 323, 325, 326

think, 4, 13, 14, 16, 19, 34, 35, 37, 40, 46, 52, 54, 70, 95, 104, 109, 112, 115, 116, 128, 158, 168, 173, 182, 185, 187, 188, 199, 207, 214, 244, 246, 248, 262, 283, 294, 303, 311, 314, 329, 330

thinker, 35, 103, 178, 188, 191, 210, 215, 219, 304

thinking, 18, 25, 28, 31, 35, 36, 41, 70, 71, 80, 103, 104, 116, 133, 147, 152, 153, 156, 173, 183, 188, 191, 199, 207, 208, 209, 212, 213, 217, 218, 221, 236, 263, 279, 293, 326

thought, 19, 33, 45, 55, 71, 73, 82, 84, 87, 107, 111, 116, 126, 131, 163, 175, 183, 189, 207, 216, 219, 221, 236, 268, 278, 283, 284, 303, 325

Thurmond, 217

time, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 14, 16, 20, 22, 24, 29, 33, 34, 35, 40, 41, 49, 54, 56, 59, 69, 75, 84, 85, 98, 102, 111, 113, 115, 120, 122, 126, 127, 128, 131, 132, 133, 146, 147, 148, 162, 163, 167, 171, 177, 178, 179, 180, 185, 199, 204, 205, 210, 215, 222, 223, 224, 227, 232, 233, 243, 254, 257, 259, 264, 274, 278, 279, 283, 285, 297, 307, 310, 311, 325, 326, 327, 329, 339, 340, 347

Time, 178, 223

tolerance, 26, 206, 207

tom boy, 213

tornado, 22, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 337, 338, 339, 340, 349

tornadogenesis, 330

Toronto Star, 301

touchdown, 329

Training, 13

transistors, 61, 161, 162

transmission, 131, 133, 134, 241, 264, 289, 290, 291, 326

transmitters, 131, 134

TRD, 321

treatment-resistant depression, 321, 325

tricyclic, 131

triggers, 11

truth, ix, 112, 149, 204, 265, 307

tuning forks, 59

Turkheimer, 155

twitch, 17

UC Berkeley, 206

UCLA, 54, 214, 218, 221

Umea University, 76

Uncertainty, 214, 215

unconscious, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 78, 98

unconsciously, 12, 69

understand, 4, 5, 12, 14, 24, 54, 60, 82, 101, 104, 122, 142, 144, 161, 162, 163, 171, 182, 183, 190, 200, 203, 208, 209, 248, 262, 308, 329, 349

understanding, 6, 9, 58, 60, 74, 77, 82, 95, 97, 109, 120, 127, 146, 157, 160, 164, 171, 177, 187, 212, 250, 254, 301, 328

understood, 8, 327, 332

Universe, 24, 47, 60, 62, 329, 346

University College, 106

University of Arizona, 58, 73

University of Arizona in Tucson, 58

University of California, 109, 206, 268

University of California at Irvine, 109

University of Cincinnati, 98, 101

University of Copenhagen, 47

University of Maryland, 206

University of New Mexico, 270

University of Oregon, 243

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 261, 324

University of Toronto.", 55

University of Virginia, 69, 155, 156, 342

University of Virginia at Charlottesville, 69, 342

University of Washington, 259, 324

upside down, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 51, 178, 210, 331

USATODAY, 330, 349

UT Southwestern, 262, 265

vaccines, 57

vagus nerve, 319, 322, 325

van Wyhe, 306, 308

variation, 19, 63, 181

Venus, 205

Veterans Administration, 265

vibrating, 2, 49

vibration, 23

vibrations, 59

Vioxx, 139

visual, 3, 14, 22, 25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 34, 35, 40, 78, 79, 80, 83, 94, 96, 103, 104, 106, 112, 116, 117, 121, 152, 153, 165, 167, 168, 174, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 187, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 198, 200, 207, 210, 211, 212, 213, 216, 218, 219, 222, 224, 225, 226, 227, 241, 248, 259, 263, 264, 273, 278, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 289, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 299, 303, 304, 305

Visual, 25, 30, 117, 153, 192, 225, 293

visual thinkers, 225, 303, 304

visually, 28, 80, 108, 116, 121, 163, 187, 188, 192, 200, 222, 223, 224, 225

Viterbi School of Engineering, 256

VNS, 318, 320, 322, 325

vortex, 329, 334, 335, 337, 338, 339

Wake Forest University, 250

Walker, 125, 126, 127, 128

Wall Street Journal, 72, 342

Warner-Lambert, 140

Washington Post, 152, 158, 322, 324, 325, 341, 345, 348

WAVE CALCULATOR, 86, 88, 89, 91

wavelength, 3, 47, 50, 51, 86, 112

waves, 2, 93, 94, 117, 222, 226

Weber-Fox,, 278

Wernicke's, 309

Will, 221

Wilson, 69, 72, 74, 78, 85, 94, 98, 342

Winston, 85

Winter, 308

wireologist, 290, 291

wiring, 3, 154, 173, 180, 187, 193

Withdrawal, 134

wolf, 31

wolves, 31, 34

women, 107, 187, 193, 195

Yale University, 131

Yazdani, 265

Yeo, 270

Young, 265, 272, 273

Zocor, 140

Zoloft, 52, 53, 54, 144

zombies, 294

Zyrtec, 140


Copyright © 2004-2016 by Lee Kent Hempfling, The Enticy Institute.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in
any manner whatsoever without written permission, except in the case of
brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
Published 2004
Table of Contents