dt1

I understand that.

I don't know if that test discounts alternative interpretations. It could be that under stress the brain dedicates more circuits to visual processing which provide the ability to read the numbers. So, rather than time slowing down, alternative synapic connections become available which provides richer interpretations of sensory information. It would make sense in a fight-or-flight scenario and is certainly consistant with the experience. Perhaps our everyday subjective experience is due to energy conservation and, in times of danger, this is no longer the prime concern.

I expected this, we are coming from different professional fields and integrating that knowledge requires us to explain some things that are unique to our fields. This is because the wavelength is a function of the plasma frequency. In English, that means it is related to the concentration of ions in a particular region. Over time, the frequency will change but only very slightly. This is only because the frequency used is not narrow enough and not tracking the slight frequency changes due to alteration in the plasma frequency. It has nothing to do with the strength of the signal. A neuron will respond to signals in the nW and microW ranges. It is an antenna because of the physics, not because of an opinion. That is immutable. So, the question becomes, does the delivery of radio energy to this antenna change the firing behaviour of the neuron. The above referenced scientific papers demonstrate that it does. This means neural coding schemes can be faked or manipulated by carefully crafted radio signals. I agree. I am using the term "switch" as a common description of a "logic gate". In more formal language I would describe the neuron as an "E-field (or voltage) controlled multi-valued logic gate" that controls the flow of charged particles and molecules. No. Voltage is a potential difference between to oppositely charged sources. The voltage only exists between the electrodes. Thus, any stimulation due to the voltage gradient would be confined to the area between the electrodes which is typically less than 10cm. Voltage is the force that moves the current. No. The current follows a single electrically direct route between the electrodes. This is why we ground things, the current will be forced to the ground, rather than into you because the voltage is greater between the ground and the source, than you and the source. This may be misleading, you were probably shocked with a DC voltage which does not produce a radio wave. The electrons need to change direction to emit the photons. Your body would be electrically described as a floating ground reference and a potential would exist between you and the source causing the electrons to flow. I stuck my finger into a 5A, 240 VAC, light socket as a child (I'm hardcore) and went into a full body lock for a fraction of a second. I know what AC feels like and I can only describe it as a vibrating carbonated water type of experience that affected my entire body. I now know that it was a discombobulation of the neurons due to a radio wave driving the plasma in the body but releasing the source before ion depletion could occur saved my life.

I suppose I have a similar experience with biologists having difficulty seeing the woods for the trees. They get lost in the complexity of an object and fail to step back and reduce it to a simple desription of its function. We could write thousands of pages on the intricate archtecture of the neuron, or we could sum it up concisely by stating that it is a switch. In architecture terms, the specifics are quite irrelevent unless they modify a key understanding. You would need to be more specific here. Also, this term of "recasting" is a bit of a misnomer. At the end of the day, it is all physics and this can only be presented in one way. I feel what you really mean is that you have, until this point, ignored certain aspects of physics to focus on the chemistry alone. I feel that comments such as this are little disingenious. How can you possibly side with anything when you have not read the material? I'm a scientist and this is not how we do things. You should know better. My apologises if that is a little rude, but these type of dismissive statements belong in realm of politics. I would not have an intricate knowlege of the full range of biochemical processes, hence my appearance here to gain insight. I do have a solid understanding of what is happening at an architectural point-of-view and design neural networks in software. The neuron is ultimately a switch. The inputs dictate which outputs occur through a electro-mechanical process. Close. It is more that the order of switching controls where molecules flow to. A complex set of railroad tracks would be a good example of what I mean by routes and the switch-like nature of the neuron is the railroad switch. I am wondering how best to approach this. There is some ground work that needs to be done, but I will attempt to sum it up as best I can. I feel that neuroscience is looking at these processes as the under-pinning mechanics in consciousness, rather than just the mechanics of a particle delivery system. My analysis has demonstrated that the brain does nothing more than deliver particles to specific sites and the mechanics of that is completely irrelevent. It appears to me that specific concepts from computation have been adopted (processing, memory, etc) and applied to the human brain without a valid scientific basis. That is, I cannot locate any form of data in the brain. Without data, there can be no processing, memory or any concept that would have a parallel with computational constructs. Thus, I have begun to look at this entire process differently. If particles are being delivered to specific locations, what exactly are they being delivered to? If the brain is just a delivery network, this would imply that the final destination is beyond the visible neural structure. This then opened questions as to the exact mechanics of how all these physically separate delivery points, were being combined. The interim conclusion is that since there is no data, all these physically separate points are delivering particles to the same thing which is already combined. This is the point I am at now and I am looking at possible quantum solutions and even beyond that.

I would agree with your comment to a certain extent, although I honestly feel that you should have read the material in full before commenting. You have made a number of assumptions in relation to the content and developed an inaccurate picture as a result. We are both examining the same system, so there will be a certain amount of "recasting". The articles present neuroscience from a computational and electrical perspective. This does add to the field as it clarifies a range of issues and demonstrates the physics behind particular mechanisms. Such information is available nowhere else and not previously understood in full. Thus, it is highly important and neuroscience cannot develop without it. As I mentioned before, I feel that this material requires integration with current understandings and mechanisms in biology to provide a fuller picture of events.

Again, I feel that you have misunderstood the physics. This area contains densely packed ions. That is the plasma antenna, it does not require a protein. It does not matter that they are in fluid, rather than being a hot gas. The membrane potential is an Electric field, that means the axon hillock is in essense a biological form of capacitor. As the radio wave passes through the axon hillock, it will charge the capacitor. It does this by redistributing the ions on either side of the membrane. We actually use the same structure in basic radios. It is called a "tank circuit": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LC_circuit The inductor (L) in the LC circuit is replaced by the plasma. This circuit is known as a "tuned circuit", that is it resonates at a particular frequency. In short, its like "tuning your radio" to a particular station. It defines a unique frequency for that axon hillock. This is a well studied phenomenon and numerous papers have been published exploiting this fact using widely varying frequencies and waveform types: Extremely Low Frequency Chaos control and synchronization of two neurons exposed to ELF external electric field http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960077906003134 Unidirectional synchronization of Hodgkin–Huxley neurons exposed to ELF electric field http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096007790700392X Fire patterns of modified HH neuron under external sinusoidal ELF stimulus http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960077908003688 Modeling the effect of an external electric field on the velocity of spike propagation in a nerve fiber http://pre.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v60/i5/p5918_1 Transmembrane potential generated by a magnetically induced transverse electric field in a cylindrical axonal model http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21063912 High Frequency and Microwave The Effect of Microwaves on the Central Nervous System http://media.withtank.com/0cf2f05d55/german_ford_motor_company_the_effect_of_microwaves_on_the_central_nervous_system.pdf It can be done, there are a number of complications to overcome. High frequency current would only flow across the surface between the electrodes in the most electrically direct route. In such an event, it would only effect the muscle between the electrodes. Tasers have a full body effect. As you now know, each axon hillock is "tuned" to a particular frequency, so only a certain percentage are responding to the 50Khz radio signal generated inside the body. They are also only absorbing a certain amount of energy. I have just released a full article on this as I realised it was missing from the series. http://deepthought.newsvine.com/_news/2013/02/09/16905519-neural-research-a-modern-view-part-4 This should explain the mechanism better.

It seems that point about not understanding electromagnetics is indeed correct. You stated "the axon hillock is and interface point but only for ionic concentrations that alter membrane potential". I totally agree with this statement, however, you are missing one important fact. This is also a plasma antenna. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_antenna The ionic concentrations that you mention can be modulated by a radio wave which changes the membrane potential. You will need to brush up on plasma physics to understand this fully, but the mechanism is valid. In reference to your point in regards to tasers, again I fully agree with you, however, you have ignored how the membrane potential is changed. The mechanism is a radio signal, not the current. I feel that we need to combine our knowledge to provide a fully accurate scientific picture of the chain of events.

Well, that seems reasonable. In the first article, the neuron is demonstrated to be nothing more than a switch. A complex network of switches in a neural net fashion, is nothing more than routing or classification. Classification is not memory or processing. Finally, it is argued that no data can be found. My question are, how do those involved in neuronscience feel about these statements? How does current neuroscience resolve this issue? The full argument can be found here: http://deepthought.newsvine.com/_news/2013/01/18/16585884-neural-research-a-modern-view-part-1 The second article delves deeper into the mechanics of the neuron and describes the role of the action potential. At the end of the article there is a statement that the electrical sensivity of the neuron would require the brain to instigate structural changes due to widespread electromagnetic interference. This assertion is based on the laws of thermodynamics and noise suppression. What is the current thinking on this? The full argument can be found here: http://deepthought.newsvine.com/_news/2013/02/04/16839714-neural-research-a-modern-view-part-2 Finally, medical science has been unable to explain the exact mechanism behind the taser. An explanation is put forward that the radio waves generated by the taser disrupt the electromechanical switch-like behavior of the motor neuron resulting in a temporary loss of coordinated muscle activity. Does neuroscience have another explanation? The full argument can be found here: http://deepthought.newsvine.com/_news/2013/02/05/16857625-neural-research-a-modern-view-part-3

I wanted to discuss the content of the articles. I don't think there would be much in the way of traffic from this site. Could you restore the links? There is also a third article here that discusses how tasers work and reveals the specific mechanism. [link removed]

As part of a scientific investigation into the design and covert usage of radio-based neural interfaces, a spin-off series of articles has been created that examines the structure of the brain in the context of computation and communications theory. The series is revealing that processing, data transfer, storage and logical constructs are not present in the biological structure of the brain. Further, the second article begins to decompose the structure of the neuron itself and reveals that it is nothing more than an electromechanical switch. The second articles examines the function of the action potential and reveals it role and how that relates to thermodynamics. These articles are concise and require the reader to have a solid familiarty with physics, computational science and logical analysis of complex systems. If you are able to follow the work, it is a real eye-opener. [links removed]