#17 dog knows shade; animal whose brain apparatus is so different as to imply brain locus ; Brain Locus theory book: "How the Mind Works; Brain as a Radio-Receiver/TV theory"

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com - 25 Aug 2008 22:12 GMT

I have been observing a dalmation dog for some time now and they fully
realize
the "idea" of shade. Sometimes the sun makes it so that the shade is a
small
narrow patch from a ash-tree. And then I feed the dog. She takes the
bone and
heads for the shade patch, instantly knowing where it is and proceeds
to
chew the bone there. Now some may say the dog has sensors on its body
to
indicate, stop here and do business here. But I would argue that the
brain locus
theory would indicate to the dog-- stop here.

Now the last time I wrote on Brain Locus theory was recently when I
conducted an experiment
on wasps where I moved the hive some 180 degrees from its location and
watched for how long
of a time span the three wasps took to find their home and to fit back
into a regular routine as
normal. It took very short time, half hour to find and 2 hours overall
to have things normal again.

What I want to consider now is the actual brain anatomy and morphology
of smaller animals, especially
insects. I believe the easiest way in the world to prove the Brain
Locus theory is true, is the anatomy
of small animals brain's would be shaped and constructed as a "radio
or TV reciever" rather than
any other construction such as a chemical construction which all
modern day scientists believe the
brain works.

Let me call what modern day scientists believe the brain works as the
Chemical Brain theory. Its
main idea is that the "mind" is an internal manifestation, an internal
cause and result. The Brain
Locus theory on the other hand is out of the body manifestation. That
the mind is a result of out of the
body signals from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality. So that photons
are shot from the Nucleus of the
Atom Totality which the brain is a receiver, and the idea of that
photon becomes registered in the brain.

So the mind is out of body in the Brain Locus theory. For years now I
have been looking for the easiest
proof that the Brain Locus with its "out of body mind" is true. I
stuck with mostly the human brain.
But now I am beginning to realize with the wasp experiment, that the
very best place to look in Nature
for the truth of the Brain Locus theory is to the smallest of animals
such as the insects. They all have
brains. So if the Brain Locus theory is true and the Chemical Brain
theory which 99.99 percent of scientists
believes is true, well, the morphology of insect brains should
converge to one or the other.

If we examine the morphology of form and structure and construction of
smaller and smaller animals,
well, their brains become more and more like that of TV or radio
receivers rather than some chemical
information storage.

One way of seeing that insect's brains look more like TV or radio
receivers is that the surface area is
much larger than volume. A radio or TV antennae maximize surface area
rather than volume.

The smallest insect brains maximize surface area rather than volume.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Reply to this Message

Archimedes Plutonium - 26 Aug 2008 11:15 GMT

Yesterday I wrote:
(snipped)

> What I want to consider now is the actual brain anatomy and morphology
> of smaller animals, especially
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
>
> The smallest insect brains maximize surface area rather than volume.

I was looking around on the web for pictures of animal brains. Came
across a few.
Drosophila or fruitfly brain pictures can be found here:
http://www.bcm.edu/labs/davis/images/brain.jpg
http://filab.biologie.uni-freiburg.de/Atlas/pics/atlas/Schemata/Abb105.gif

Those fruitfly brains do take on a resemblance of double dish antennae much
as what was seen in the lawns of peoples homes to collect TV signals.

So if the Chemistry brain theories are true, then the shape does not
really matter
so much and one should expect that the brain volume to follow some
function of
body mass. In the Brain Locus theory, however, a brain can be a single atom.
And in the Brain Locus theory the brain is more concerned with surface area
rather than volume. Surface area maximizes antennae reception. Volume is
important for a Chemical Brain theory.

Here is a good picture of the differences between amphibian, reptile,
bird and mammal brains
http://slohs.slcusd.org/pages/teachers/rhamley/Biology/Frog%20Dissection/frog%20
brain%20compare.JPG

Folds in the brain tissue is a maximization of surface area, implying
the Brain Locus theory is
closer to the truth than the Chemistry theory of the Brain.

Clinching evidence for the Brain Locus theory would be to see the brains
of smaller and smaller
animals where the brain tissue is more and more antennae anatomy.

The volume of animal brains deals more with the execution of thought or
the controlling of body
functions like the heartbeat or breathing. Elephant brains are larger
than human brains because
the elephant needs to control a larger body. So the size of the brain is
not what delivers profound
ideas since those ideas can come from a single atom as a brain.

The brain in the Brain Locus theory has three main parts and three main
functions. A single atom
is the crystal of the Mind. Much like the crystal in a radio. The
surrounding tissue and the bulk of the
brain other than the crystal serves as a antennae to receive the photons
from the Atom Totality Nucleus
and this surrounding tissue then executes the message inscribed in the
photon.

So the bulk of a brain is to be a antennae and to execute the message
encoded in the photons shot
into the brain. The actual center of the mind is a single atom or a
small collection of atoms.

For this reason, all animals require sleep and rest. Like a radio that
is out of tune and needs tuning.
When a human is deprived of sleep, the brain locus as a single atom is
not tuned, and if this tuning
is not allowed to be accomplished the person dies. The groggy feeling of
lack of sleep is because
the brain locus is not tuned to the rest of the brain.

When we keep moving around the dials on a radio to get the station we
want, we are tuning the radio.
The same thing happens when people are sleeping, that the brain is in a
process of configuring the atoms
and molecules that form our Brain Locus.

If the Chemistry Brain theory was correct, then a certain volume and
mass is required for a brain to
exist, in order to form thoughts and control prompts of body reaction.
So at some small size and volume
and mass, there cannot be a brain smaller. But apparently all animals,
even the smallest of animals,
and dare I say that microorganisms like viruses probably have brains.

So in the old biology of Chemistry Brain theory, a microorganism could
not have a brain because
there was no structure of a brain since the organism was too small. But
in the Brain Locus theory
since a single atom can be the brain, then viruses would have brains.

I do not know if anyone has conducted any experiment to see if viruses
have a sense of the
surrounding environment. I would guess that any "sensor " on a virus
would indicate it must have
a brain in order to operate sensors. Bacteria with flagella must have
brains to operate a flagella. Some
viruses have injection-devises like a hypodermic needle. I suspect that
is enough of a sensor
to say that viruses must have a brain.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Reply to this Message

Archimedes Plutonium - 26 Aug 2008 19:57 GMT

(most snipped)

> >
> > Let me call what modern day scientists believe the brain works as the
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> > have been looking for the easiest
> > proof that the Brain Locus with its "out of body mind" is true. I

Correct me if wrong, for I am no expert on the history of science. I
find myself in a unique position
with the Brain Locus theory. In that the opposition has no "name" for
their theory or theories. And
so I have to give them a name. In all the other theories in science that
I have discovered, I have
never had this problem before.

Big Bang theory and my rival theory of Atom Totality

Nebular Dust Cloud theory and my rival of Dirac "new radioactivity"
Growing Solar System theory

Convection theory in Plate Tectonics and my rival theory of Vibrations
from Dynamo Core theory

Prion theory and my rival theory of Metal Causation

Darwin Evolution and my rival theory of Superdeterminism

BCS Superconductivity and my rival theory of Capacitor Current
Superconductivity

So my point is well taken that as I discovered new and better theories
to current theories of science
the name of my rival or opponent theory was already well established in
science. However, with
my Brain Locus theory, the science establishment never gave a name to
what they believed in
psychology for how the mind works. Probably because no-one really had a
theory in psychology for
how the mind works. There did develop the "Triune theory" of the mind
but it was discredited.

So I think the reason that the theories of the mind were never given a
name, until now, and by me,
is because of the primitive and backwardness of the science of
psychology. That they were so
disorganized and underdeveloped as a science that they could not even
give a name to what they
believed in "how the mind works".

Unlike my other discoveries of theories, the science community had well
developed names for what
they believed in.

So here I am going to have to give my opposition theories of psychology
a name.

Up until the Brain Locus theory the science of psychology believed that
the Mind is all in-body and
chemical-electrical mechanism. So an appropriate name for the theories
of psychology before I entered
the picture would be Chemistry-In-Body-Mind theories

The main feature of Brain Locus theory that distinguishes and separates
it from all of psychology before
1995 and from 1995 onwards, is the idea that a "mind" is completely
Out-of-the-Body. That the brain
is like the crystal and antennae of a radio and the thoughts and ideas
and mind come from far away.

In order for the Bell Inequality of physics to work you have to have
Superdeterminism, and in order
for Superdeterminism to work, you have to have complete control over
every thought and idea in
living creatures. In order for complete control of the Brain and Mind,
then the brain and mind have
to be radio or TV receivers.

So my rivals and opponents never named what they most believe in their
psychology of the Mind.
So I have to give them a name for their beliefs.

I give them the name of Chemistry-in-body-Mind theories. Every scientist
and psychologists who
talked about Mind theories before 1995 and who believes in those
theories to present day 2008
were believing in a In-Body-Mind theory. The Brain Locus theory is
Out-of-the-Body-Mind theory.

Maybe I can find a better name for my rivals and opponents, but as for
now, Chemistry-In-Body-
MInd theories is the best I can do for what they believe to be true. And
what they assume to
be true in their writings.

I suspect this is the first time in the history of science where a
scientist had to give his opponents
and rivals a name for what their beliefs were.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Reply to this Message

plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com - 28 Aug 2008 19:19 GMT

Last time I wrote on Brain Locus theory, I said the size of the brain
did not matter. So that if a human
can be shrunk to the size of a insect, his brain would be like any
other human brain. If a scientist
were shrunk to the size of an insect, his brain would still carry the
science before being shrunk.

In the Chemistry-In-body theories of the mind, shrinking would make
the brain less capable, so that
if a scientist was shrunk, he would no longer have "intelligence". But
in the Brain-Locus-Out of Body
theory of the mind, shrinking makes no difference because the crystal
of the mind can be a single
atom, as a crystal in a radio or TV set.

So this allows us to experiment between the two different classes of
theories. Is the mind In-body
or Out-of-body? Miniaturization of a brain would then cause, more
dumber animals than full sized
brains.

We have a type of miniaturization taking place in dog species.
Although our smallest dogs are not
the size of insects, it is amazing how small they have been bred.

The question then is the relative size of a smallest dog versus dogs
of large size and the size of
its wild genetic progeny of the wolf species. Can the smallest brain
of a dog species be trained
as the largest dog species and the wolf?

From what I have seen in sources, some smaller dogs like the terriers
are "smarter" than the larger
breeds and tamed wolves. In other words, size does not matter.

Also, the brains of elephants and whales are some of the largest
brains on Earth, if not the largest.
If the Brain Locus theory is true, then a miniature elephant or a
miniature whale should be as intelligent
as a full sized one. The size of the brain has no relevance to
intelligence in the Brain Locus theory
because the size only is a factor in catching the signal from the
Nucleus of the Atom Totality and
coordinating the rest of the body to respond to that signal. So if the
signal is "move your head 30 degrees
to the left" then the brain mass exists not to catch the signal but to
execute the orders of the signal.

As far as I know, the smallest dogs have no problem of "intelligence"
versus the largest dogs.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Reply to this Message

Natural Science Forum / Biology / Biology / August 2008

#17 dog knows shade; animal whose brain apparatus is so different as to imply brain locus ; Brain Locus theory book: "How the Mind Works; Brain as a Radio-Receiver/TV theory"