Calcium Imaging: What does a Thought look like?

Posted by a Finn on February 25, 2007, 08:55 PM | #

The future of tolerance: Everybody’s brains must be removed right after the birth, so there is no possibility to “rascist” thoughts.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 25, 2007, 09:29 PM | #

Good post.  A minor quibble:  Seeing brain neurons firing doesn’t tell us what thoughts are any more than seeing transistors, lightbulbs, or integrated circuits firing does.  As of now no one knows what thoughts are.  No one has a clue.

Posted by PF on February 25, 2007, 09:49 PM | #

Fred wrote: “As of now no one knows what thoughts are.”

What else could a thought be besides a certain neuronal firing pattern?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 25, 2007, 10:38 PM | #

“What else could a thought be besides a certain neuronal firing pattern?”  (—PF)

Right, you’d think there was no alternative to a thought’s being that, but the question is, rather, How could a thought be a certain neuronal firing pattern?  The “neuron firing” is cell membranes with, as you mentioned, calcium fluxes as well as sodium and potassium fluxes, some passively following gradients, some having to do with ion pumps, and so on and so forth, the membrane’s action potential representing simply the movement along the axon of a reversal of certain resting ionic gradients, and therefore polarity of voltages, across the membrane.  That’s all that goes on when the neuron fires.  When lots of them fire, it goes on lots.  How does that make a thought?  No one knows.  As for what a thought itself actually is, no one has even the slightest approach to a clue.  It’s shrouded in deepest mystery.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 25, 2007, 10:51 PM | #

For readers who haven’t taken physiology:  see action potential.

Posted by Daniel J on February 26, 2007, 01:53 AM | #

Come on… I’m so sick of people looking for the biological reason for every single behavior. That is a depressing world weltenschauung as well as a classic chicken of the egg problem.

Which came first the thought or the synapse.

I stand with Fred - No one has any “scientific” idea about and nor can they.

Posted by Daniel J on February 26, 2007, 01:55 AM | #

strike ‘world’ from my third sentence in my last post

Posted by Daniel J on February 26, 2007, 01:56 AM | #

.... also change ‘of’ to: ‘or’

don’t drink and post!

Posted by alex zeka on February 26, 2007, 04:37 AM | #

Sufficiently complicated systems become more than the sum of their parts. Our thoughts are just, more than the sum of all the signals, neurons, etc, etc, which is all we can see by looking at each component of our brains in isolation.

What is interesting here is the question of whether this can apply to a group of individuals as well as a group of individual synapses, etc. In other words, can there be something like a hive mind, created by many people living in close contact with one another.

Posted by Tommy G on February 26, 2007, 08:22 AM | #

“As for what a thought itself actually is, no one has even the slightest approach to a clue.  It’s shrouded in deepest mystery.”—by Fred Scrooby

Of course Fred is correct. Scientists, at this point, can observe in a limited way only a few biological reactions to a thought. As for what a thought acually is or where it originates, continues to remain a profound mystery.

Posted by PF on February 26, 2007, 09:36 AM | #

So what are you guys trying to say, that thought doesnt take place in the brain, that it doesnt involve neurons, that it involves more than just neurons, that we can never understand it, or that we just cant understand it at this point?

We already know the brain centers where things like ‘affection’ register- brain studies which asked people to look at pictures of people they were in love with found consistent results, same with fear in the amygdala, speech and broca’s area - so if we know where the thoughts are, that already narrows it down to a few hundred million neurons.

I hope the complexity of the system doesnt lead people to try to reerect mysticism and the impossibility of knowledge. My belief is that thinking is as concrete and as knowable a function as photosynthesis, or swallowing, or the formation of a blood clot. Why shouldnt it be? Its way more complex, involving billions of cells. Nevertheless, in my view, it must be knowable.

“Sufficiently complicated systems become more than the sum of their parts.”

Perhaps I dont understand you right, but using biological systems as my reference point, I would disagree. A series of proteins is involved in DNA damage repair - and would you somehow try to ‘sum’ these proteins to get an emergent property of DNA damage repair? I dont see it. There are proteins, they repair DNA. I dont see how the parts of any organic system can be summed, since they operate in more complex ways than simply being present alltogether.

And there is no mysterious step in DNA damage repair for example when the proteins involved somehow transcend their simple mechanical functions and become ‘more than the sum of their parts’ - it works like an assembly line, basic basic.

Please take me up on this, im interested in whats behind the philosophy of ‘emergent properties’. I don’t know a single biological system in which an understanding of the parts involved somehow does not explain the phenomena that they generate.

Posted by Frank McGuckin on February 26, 2007, 10:48 AM | #

Look, this is an old raging debate that has been going probably since Aristotle’s and Plato’s stint on this planet.

It is discussed and argued in undergraduate and graduate philosophy seminars across the Nation and in the UK.

Basically, what is being put forth is a empiricist/behaviorist theory of meaning. A lot has been writen about this. Check out the writings of philosopher Jerry Fodor.The debate rages on.

It is a serious issue. The AI folks ignored the philosophers and as consequence the AI program-including its connectionists version-has come up way short of their intetnded goals. John Derbyshie has a well written thoughtful post about this on his website a few years back.

These the reductionist progam in bioogy is taking a big hit-whether or not you want to accept this fact about current cutting edge biological research. The central dogma of biochemistry has taken a big hit in recent years.

The larger issue seems to be biological reductionism and the consequences biological reductionism has for the issue of just how localized is the the informational code of the phenotype.

The emerging view-no pun here-is that the code for the phenotype is not all that localize and is spread at at different levels of biological organization.

If you want to -for your own PC reasons-to reject this emerging point of view-which is based upon empirical scientific investigation- in the biological sciences you are free to do so.

It also tactically foolish for White Nationalist to make biological reductionism at the core of their political program.

I can give you several examples where this view has been used against OUR PEOPLE IN THE GOOD OLE USA.

I remember reading smething recently on a science news website-sorry I didn’t book mark this site-about the moral and commonsense judgements of people from the waste down. Supposeadly, in a study of quads, there was impairment of moral judgements because the quads lost the ability to make emphathetic and common sense judgements. The conclusion of the study was this:Humans think with there whole bodies. Cognition is far less localized than previously thought.

In a very similar way,the code for the phenotype is spread out through the cell and cells- upward to higher levels of biological organization.

One should not conclude from this that environmental determinism is a legitimate point of view, Environmental determism is just a s intellectually bankrupt as biological reductionism.

As Noam Chomsky has pointed human embryos don’t evolve into crabs.

I beleive the corect model is similar to the one Nobel Prize winner Niels Jerne put forth for the immune system(the selectionist model)

Posted by PF on February 26, 2007, 11:54 AM | #

“These the reductionist progam in bioogy is taking a big hit-whether or not you want to accept this fact about current cutting edge biological research. The central dogma of biochemistry has taken a big hit in recent years.

The larger issue seems to be biological reductionism and the consequences biological reductionism has for the issue of just how localized is the the informational code of the phenotype.”

I’ll assume your addressing me, Frank.

What is the central dogma of biochemistry? I only know the central dogma of biology, DNA to RNA to Protein.

‘the issue of just how localized is the informational code of the phenotype’.

Im afraid your post lacked any other factual or theoretical footholds where I could ‘cut in’ and answer. You are treating the argument like we had all studied whatever accumulation of theory there is on the subject. What I said above is pretty concrete and straightforward and I think its fair to expect the same degree of clarity in answers. The brain is an organ like the liver - everything obeys the rules of chemistry and physics.

The knee-jerk response to this article, which I refer to as knee-jerk because I see no verifiable facts floating anywhere in these posts which could contradict what I am saying, is one reason why I think its important to talk about neurobiology: Because the complexity of the brain is being used to erect a new Mysticism on the basis of ‘The Unknowable Other.’ The Mysterious Brain! We can never know its workings… umm, ahem, unless we actually look at the results of studies!

The most revealing studies actually arent done in humans, but in rats and mice and fish and other animals. Ah yes! But the human brain, that is doomed to remain forever an enigma… I see… lest we understand it too well and become ‘biological reductionists.’ There is always the danger of knowing too much..

Posted by Frank McGuckin on February 26, 2007, 12:27 PM | #

PM

I’m not really interested in debating in any great depth an issue that is debated in great depth at the undergraduate,graduate level, in the pages of scientific America, in books by Roger Penrose and in internet philosophy discussion forums that phd level professional philosophers participate in.

The whole point of majority rights is to provide a forum were European people can discuss ways to fight back at their enemies and to tell their enemies to Fuck off

Posted by Guessedworker on February 26, 2007, 12:48 PM | #

Frank ...

From The Guardian back in November 2003:-

Inside the mind of a racist: scans may reveal brain’s hidden centres of prejudice

As new research raises possibility that police recruits could be screened for bias, some experts argue US study’s conclusions are misplaced

American scientists have developed a brain scan that they say can detect people harbouring racial prejudice. While looking at a brain region known to control thoughts and behaviour, the researchers found surges of activity in racially biased white people who were shown photographs of black faces, which they say are down to suppressed prejudice.

The research has already provoked controversy, with some experts arguing the study’s conclusions are misplaced. At its most far-reaching, the study raises the possibility that the minds of people, including police recruits, could be screened for racist attitudes. The scientist who led the research admits she was stunned by the results. “I was shocked. I couldn’t believe we got this correspondence with the brain activity,” said Professor Jennifer Richeson, a neuroscientist at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire.

Prof Richeson said the brain activity arises because the volunteers are concentrating on not doing or saying anything offensive. This inner struggle tires the brain so much, she said, that prejudiced white people who interacted with black people would find it difficult to concentrate afterwards. “If they had an interaction that was hard to negotiate and then went back to work, they might not be able to focus on the task they’re doing because they’re exhausted,” Prof Richeson said.

To conduct the research, her team first asked 30 white students to sit an implicit association test (IAT), in which they associated white or black names with positive or negative words. The test is contentious, but it is widely used as a convenient measure of unconscious or automatic racial bias. The students were not told what the test was about. They then briefly met a black or white person before being asked to complete a difficult mental task. Two weeks later the same students were asked to help in an unrelated experiment, in which they were handed pictures of the faces of black or white people while having their brains scanned with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) equipment.

Difficult

The scientists found a strong link between a volunteer’s IAT score and activity in a region of their brain called the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Those with the highest levels of brain activity also performed the worst in the difficult mental task. “The people are working hard to negotiate the interaction and then they’re spent. It’s almost like depleting a muscle: if you work it out too much then you can’t lift any more weight,” Prof Richeson said.

Others say it is dangerous to interpret the results that way. “That’s exactly the kind of inference we’re arguing it would be unfortunate to draw at this point,” said Professor Bill Gehring, a psychologist at the University of Michigan. “There just isn’t enough known about what this task is actually showing.”

The controversial study is published today in the journal Nature Neuroscience, which also discusses it in an editorial as well as publishing an accompanying article trying to explain the context. “This study is likely to be widely discussed, so it is important to emphasise that it is not about biological determinants of racial prejudice,” the editorial says. “Although it describes neural correlates of implicit bias, it says nothing about the source of this bias; even more importantly it says nothing about the relationship between implicit bias and actual behaviour towards people of other races.”

Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, welcomed the research, but said using brain scans as a test for racism would not be useful. “We spend far too much time worried about trying to detect racism in people rather than circumscribing the behaviour which leads to bias,” he said. “There are people who have racist attitudes who are perfectly fair and even-handed in the ways they treat people, and there are people who would think of themselves as committed anti-racists who consistently show bias in the way they behave.”

Prof Gehring, who helped to write the journal’s accompanying article, disputes some of the study’s conclusions: “These are very important empirical findings concerning the mental processes that go on when people interact with someone of a different race, but what those findings mean is not clarified yet. You have to be very careful about how you interpret them.” He said IAT scores are not necessarily an accurate measure of an individual’s racial bias, and it is inevitable that the study volunteers would have realised what the researchers were looking for.

“Clearly at some point everyone realises it must be about their racial bias and they feel they’re being assessed. That is an additional factor that must be taken into account.” Others say brain activity like that seen in the study could indicate more than just racial prejudice. “The effect the authors describe is really a subset of a much more general phenomenon, that of social distraction,” says Professor Bob Turner, of University College London. “Consider the difficulty of remaining focused on a serious topic of discussion when one’s interlocutor is a young, curvaceous blonde with a very low-cut dress.” He said that comparison studies are needed with less politically loaded social distractions.

The research marks an increasing trend in neuroscience of using brain imaging equipment to do more than merely map what part of the brain is responsible for various processes, and instead study social issues and even attempt to predict behaviour (see panel). But such work remains controversial, because it is very difficult to pin down exactly what the images reveal.

“You have to keep in mind just how flexible and adaptive the human brain is,” said Prof Gehring. “To try and take these things and say you can screen people for one thing or another and predict their behaviour is making a leap that goes way beyond where science is at right now.”

Another issue is how closely what happens in a laboratory reflects real life. “It’s hard because there are so many other factors in a complex social environment,” said Prof Richeson. “Even if we can predict what people do in the lab, we still might not be able to predict what they do in the street or at work. You might not behave in the same way if it’s your boss.”

So PF is right.  It’s white racism that rings the research bell.  Gotta get to the root of that original sin.

Why single out whites, though?

Ah, Jennifer Brain-Girl is a mulatto.

Here she is again, just a month later:-

racism can make you stupid

A Dartmouth College study reveals that interracial contact has a profound impact on a person’s attention and performance. The researchers found new evidence using brain imaging that white individuals attempt to control racial bias when exposed to black individuals, and that this act of suppressing bias exhausts mental resources.

The study combines the use of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), which measures brain activity, with other behavioral tests common to research in social and cognitive psychology to determine how white individuals respond to black individuals.

“We were surprised to find that brain activity in response to faces of black individuals predicted how research participants performed on cognitive tasks after actual interracial interactions,” says Jennifer Richeson, the lead author on the paper. “To my knowledge, this is the first study to use brain imaging data in tandem with more standard behavioral data to test a social psychological theory. We found that white people with higher scores on the racial bias measure experienced greater neural activity in response to the photographs of black males,” says Richeson. “This heightened activity was in the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, an area in the front of the brain that has been linked to the control of thoughts and behaviors. Plus, these same individuals performed worse on the cognitive test after an actual interaction with a black male, suggesting that they may have been depleted of the necessary resources to complete the task.”

This new study by Richeson provides striking evidence that supports the idea that interracial contact temporarily impairs cognitive task performance. These results suggest, according to the researchers, that harboring racial bias in an increasingly diverse society may be bad for one’s cognitive performance.”

So here’s the problem, Jen-baby.  Let’s agree that people don’t like genetic aliens.  Let’s agree that no one is unique in possessing such inner judgements.  But let’s also agree that one people are unique in that they are at the bottom of everybody’s list.  Whites, on average, find blacks physically and morally less appealing than everybody else.  So do the Chinese - excessively, one hears - and so, too, do Indians.

So, you see, perhaps you should really be researching why blacks are so rejected by other peoples.  Or is that racist and therefore stupid?

Posted by Bud White on February 26, 2007, 01:26 PM | #

[“American scientists have developed a brain scan that they say can detect people harbouring racial prejudice. While looking at a brain region known to control thoughts and behaviour, the researchers found surges of activity in racially biased white people who were shown photographs of black faces, which they say are down to suppressed prejudice.”]

My God!!!This is strait out of Rod Serling’s “The Twilight Zone” episode:

>>“It’s a Good Life,” features Billy Mumy as a mind-reading six year old who can instantly disfigure or kill any person around him who doesn’t think “happy thoughts.” The episode drips with claustrophobic tension as the people of Peaksville, Ohio tiptoe through their daily activities striving to maintain a happy facade despite their terror.”

So now what? What is to become of us if we perceive blacks as the inferior Apes they are? Will we be forced to undergo a lobotomy? This world is becoming more frightening by the day!

Posted by Frank McGuckin on February 26, 2007, 02:30 PM | #

Guessworker

All I can say is this:

1)don’t let our enemies define the terms of the debate

2)If we become a racial minority in Amrica and the UK, the will kill us off. In the case of the European population of the UK, when your numbers become small enough, you run the risk of being eaten for dinner to feed the growing Paki population.

Fighting tactic:always throw the racism charage back at the enemy. Make them exlpqalin why they aren’t racist. Once the charge of racism is tossed back,they get put on the defensive. Our legitimate interests then define the terms of the debate. Will this half negro professor allow her brain to be scanned for racism as WE define it operationally.

Fundamental issue for European people:shutting down immigration policies that will reduce European people to minority status. People who are in favor of doing this to European people are racists. This is my definition of a racist.

Someone should ask the mulato professor1)if she supports current US immigation policy and if she does why? Ask her if she would to see Euro-Americans reduced to a racial minority in America. We can play this game also.

What would likely emerge from an interrogation of the mulatto professor is this:she hates us and we hate her. End of the dialogue. The differences can’t be patched up.

Remember the fundamental issue is not very complex:they are comming hee to conquer us and then kill us off. In the case of the UK, conquer and then eat.

Critical mass is a worn out phrase. But if you do beleive as I do that critical mass will be reached..what next.

They don’t like to talk about this over a vdare.com and AR.

What next after different racial tribes in America are competing over its scarce resources? Well I know, you know,Brimelow knows,Sailer knows, Taylor knows….even the liberals probably…oh fuck, let be honest they know…....a soft landing…a big buyout says Peter Brimelow….there is no money and space for a big buyout….no soft landing.

The upper- income parents of the Euro- American teenage male lacrosse players did fight back.

They fought back in Michigan also.

Posted by Rnl on February 26, 2007, 02:57 PM | #

Guessedworker wrote:

Whites, on average, find blacks physically and morally less appealing than everybody else.

On the other hand, acting on behalf of Blacks apparently makes Whites feel good about themselves:

Concerned with the use of prejudice and stereotypes as mechanisms for self-image maintenance, [Steven] Fein suggested anti-prejudice as a method of maintaining the self-image. He found that when the social norm is “politically correct,” White participants instructed to endorse a African-American job applicant over a White one showed higher levels of stated self-esteem. Fein asked the question, “Does arguing for a African-American candidate make Whites feel better?” and answered himself with “yes, significantly.”

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=1479

So if you’re a White implementing an AA discrimination program that rewards Blacks and punishes other Whites, you must be saturated with self-esteem.

Posted by Daniel J on February 26, 2007, 04:42 PM | #

I’m still trying to address the issue of the article.

Just knowing what goes on inside the brain when one feels fear or love doesn’t prove that what is going on inside “causes” the feelings.

Like I said it is an irresolvable and classic “chicken or the egg” problem.

Can’t the atheists and the theists just agree to disagree on this one?

Also, someone had pointed out that it genes/biology should not be the central tenet of our argument. I concur. I think culture and philosophy, social mores and codes are far more important. These things just happen to correspond to biology most of the time and that is fine

Posted by Guessedworker on February 26, 2007, 05:07 PM | #

Daniel,

In the broadest terms we Anglo-Saxons and American are culturally empiricist.  America, particularly, brings to the argument for our survival an empiricist voice, the major exponents of which are Rushton, MacDonald, Salter.

Europe is, broadly speaking, focussed on salvation through spiritual renewal.  These are the two sides of the equation.  Both are valuable.  Both are needed.  But, actually, both need to be placed in the same harness - race and culture together.

This, though, would be a work of great intellectual creativity for which very, very few minds are suited.  At the moment American empiricists tend not to know anything about the philosophical path, or understand even that it is necessary.  A few have read Yockey, for sure.  But enough said.

European philosophers like Faye do not incorporate Salterism and Rushtonism into their thinking, and Faye is as hard-edged as any of them.  Some like de Benoist resolutely reject determinism of any degree.

We need an intellectual synthesis around which we can all find a place to stand.

Posted by Frank McGuckin on February 26, 2007, 05:16 PM | #

Daniel

The point you made in your post is well known in the world of analytic and phenomenological philosophy. This is the qualia issue which arises in the philosophical and scientific analysis of conciousness. Thousands of pages have been written on this topic.
I’m suren there must be a good wikipedia entry for it.

There is a very interesting perspective on this issue that in analytical and   phenomenological philosophical traditions. It goes like this.Human beings may not be wired up in a way that would enable human beings to resolve the mind/body problem. This is the limitivist view of human unudrstanding. The claim is that in order for humans to be understand anything at all, there must be constraints imposed by the structure of the human brian that precludes human beings from knowing everything that can and is true about the universe. It is just something we have to live with.

Some of these philosophers argue that if these biological constraints on knowedge acquistion didn’t exist, humans wouldn’t be able to differentiate what is true from what isn’t.

Cosmologist John Barrow wrote an intersting book about this seveal years back arguing for the same limitivist view of our knowledge about ourselves as a species and on our knowledge of the universe. Barrow argues that if we didn’t have these limitations and constraints on what we can know, we wouldn’t be able to know anything.

Barrow has a a lot of facts from physics and mathematics to back his argument.

Philosopher Colin MGinn wrote an interesting book about epistemological limitivism several years back.

Posted by Frank McGuckin on February 26, 2007, 05:33 PM | #

Guessdworker

I not so sure if we have to come up with some big,grand theoretical infrastructure….at least for the time being.

I’m interested in practical things such as kicking our demographic replacements(hispanics,asians,muslims and africans) out of our lands.

WE just need to say that European people have legitimate interests in the nations the funded and built and specify which policies threaten our legitimate interests.

What we should say in public loud and clear is this:it is not in the interests of European people to support immigration policies that will reduce them to racial minority status.

Force the enemy explain to us why they think it would be in the best interests of European people to tolerate an immigration policy that will eventually lead to their racial annihilation in the nations they founded and built.

Just forcing them to debate the issue framed this way will cause them to loose the public debate.

Believe it or not, lefties do have to give lip service to the view that (non-white) immigration is a great benefit to Europrean people. And the reason they do is that lefties know that if they don’t give lip service to the immigration-benefits-whitey viewpoint in public, whitey might very well percieve lefties real intentions and revolt….and eventually murder the lefties

Posted by Guessedworker on February 26, 2007, 06:30 PM | #

Frank,

I support public debate on terms the public can understand, naturally.  But we did not arrive at this dire situation independently of liberalism in its manifold developments or the elites it has thrown up over the last several decades.  It is not enough to attempt to found permanent change on the immigrant issue alone.  We have to change everything in the manner of genuine revolutionaries.

Posted by Daniel J on February 26, 2007, 06:52 PM | #

We need an intellectual synthesis around which we can all find a place to stand. - Guessedworker

I think you are probably right. However, the mind it will take to do that probably does not exist.

Arriving at synthesis between two positions that are so opposed will be a huge task. I’m hoping since I have such an early start I can contribute much down the line.

Also, after we have arrived at some definite position we in the vanguard can agree upon, we have to accommodate the general public which may be a more enormous task then agreeing amongst ourselves!

Posted by Guessedworker on February 26, 2007, 07:20 PM | #

Philosophers and politicians tend to their respective spheres, Daniel.  There will be no problem accomodating the public, providing the philosophy is within their moral compass.

In any case, the weighting of empirical findings upon the overall scheme would tend it towards realism, in my view (meaning the socially-conservative and traditional rather than the grand and ambitious - though that’s not to say I didn’t enjoy listening to Norman Lowell’s ideas).

Posted by Frank McGuckin on February 26, 2007, 07:29 PM | #

Guessedworker

Ok, I think I now understand your point of view..sought of

Didn’t capitalism and liberalism both emerge during the Enlightenment?

One of the things I’m interested in: stripping corporations of their rights as human beings.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 26, 2007, 08:01 PM | #

Frank, you will need to expand on that human rights thing for me.

As I see it today, the problem lies in the disagreement that corporations have with the ethnic state.  This is a fruit of Burnhamesque managerialism - managers, once in control, tend to their own interests, removing risk to themselves personally and structuring the business for short-term gains.  The solution is to rein them in, and reintroduce the principal of controlling ownership into business generally.

Posted by karlmagnus on February 27, 2007, 10:07 PM | #

GW, sorry for no previous response. You’re absolutely right, though you have to remember that managers these days are already indoctrinated in business schools, so it’s not entirely their fault. In any case, since the system is about to collapse, the intellectual outlook of management may be very different at Dow 5000 to what it was at Dow 12000. No point trying to change their thinking at the top of the bubble; large numbers of the current mob (particularly the investment bankers) will be behind bars by 2012, only peripherally because of their ideas on globalisastion. Just as 1935’s CEO was a very different animal from 1928’s, so too will 2014’s be very differnt from today’s

Posted by Guessedworker on February 28, 2007, 07:29 AM | #

KM:... the system is about to collapse ...

A little more detail on that might be helpful.  When, for a start.  Are the latest falls on global markets connected, or are they just the usual ebb and flow?

Posted by ben tillman on February 28, 2007, 12:27 PM | #

In any case, since the system is about to collapse….

Please elaborate.  To this layman, the US economy does seem to be a house of cards, but what will bring it down?  When?  I’d be very interested in your insights, Karl.

Posted by Frank McGuckin on February 28, 2007, 12:55 PM | #

Obey James Kramer. Do what he says. Be a good little pinhead. He is looking out for the little guy. In fact all the wealthy Jews in his hedge fund are looking out you and your family’s well being. The man who bankrolled James Kramer’s hedgefund-Martin Peretz-has your family’s interests close to his heart also.

Now if you believe any of this you really are a pinhead.

James Kramer likes his markets to be highly liquid. Makes it easier for Jewish James Kramer and Jewish James Simons(Renaissance technology) to steal from you.

It’s a zero sum game. James Kramer and Maritn Peretz win-BIG TIME-at your expense

At this point in time, only God knows when the market will collapse. But if there is one thing you can be sure off…the shenanagins of the Hedge fund managers will cause the collapse.

Hey, I thik I discovered a new financial instrument: Betting against the intelligence of Hedge fund managers.

Posted by ben tillman on February 28, 2007, 01:08 PM | #

This new study by Richeson provides striking evidence that supports the idea that interracial contact temporarily impairs cognitive task performance. These results suggest, according to the researchers, that harboring racial bias in an increasingly diverse society may be bad for one’s cognitive performance

Funny that this isn’t employed as an argument against racial diversity in the workplace, or the classroom, or ....

Posted by Robert on October 28, 2010, 10:29 PM | #

Doesn’t thought stem from feeling?

I mean if we didn’t feel anything,we wouldn’t think it right?

Kinda like robots. .

. . . .and if im not mistaken,feeling stems from vibration.

I don’t think it plausible to say if we would ever be able to see a thought,thats is,with our eyes.

It’s just not the right instrument.

But if we are going to make the argument,you would say a thought would,vary, among each person.

Love,hate,sadness,math & everything else would look different to each person and only that person knows what it looks like,based off of memory.

Memories are only remembered,because of the senses.

Hearing,feeling,seeing,smelling,or tasting.

If you think about it,they’re all just one sense,touch.

Our brain is the organic supercomputer that processes all of this by inputing and outputting vibrations to sustain its existence.

Our minds and everything else in the universe,was created from vibration,which is nothing but energy in motion.

The real question is,where did the original energy that did all of what we see today,come from?

But to ask that would be completely ludicrous!

That would mean there is something beyond this “plain"of existence.

Something our minds have not mastered or maybe never will be able to.

Anyway,to answer this question. . thoughts look exactly how we as individuals see them,they currently can not be expressed,

in a way ,that the another could see them, for they come from within,our vibration.

Only one’s “mind” could process such an advanced force.

Sidenote:Man I just LOVE being a human!

I mean,to able to even have the ability to think,is just a blessing!

Always figuring out solutions to our problems,and continuously progressing. . .maybe as we progress we will

advance to even higher understandings. . .which will probably lead us back to where we are now.lol

I do kinda believe that our existence is linear,like a circle.

It maybe the only way we can maintain our individual existence in this “reality”.

I mean,what more could we do?

The fact that we even wonder about it,makes me think there MUST be something else,how do we become ABSOLUTE.

Being that our “life"cycle maybe nothing but a circle,does that already make us absolute?

What more could we do?

This is why I love the movie the matrix.

It really shows us,that computers are a form or lesser version of ourselves,trying to destroy itself,because they understand that we will never be satisfied and we will constantly seek advancement in our existence,which is the only reason we even LIVE.

When actually,we don’t even have a logical means for being alive.

We are alive,because it feels good,we are and will forever maintain our existence just because.

Energy as far as we understand cannot be destroyed nor created.

We are like a “virus"moving & manipulating everything around us.

To “think” at all really has no “real"point to it.

If we all just stop thinking and we all die,it will cause a chain reaction,that will only lead us back to the present.

Like a circle,we have no point. . we just “ARE”.lol

“To be or not to be”

That really is not the question,we are and will forever be because of what we’ve become.

We’ve become what we’ve become because of our minds,or thoughts.

& so on and so,one giant loop hole,leading back to present.

“A total mind fuck”

I mean,what more could satisfy our own yearning for figuring out what can’t be solved?

or can it be?

Makes you think huh?x-D

Sorry for the long post,I was just so inspired by this question.lol