Strange

You admire people who believe in something that doesn't exist. A religion substitute, perhaps.

The only disinformation on the internet is the sort of deluded nonsense you seem to have fallen for. As you have no evidence, we can safely ignore you.

Please provide evidence of this "systemic disinformation". (You are dangerously close to the argument that "the fact there is no evidence just shows how powerful the conspiracy is".)

Please provide some evidence of this global conspiracy to control the climate using "chemtrails". (Based on the previous difficulty of squeezing evidence out of you, I won't hold my breath.)

There is no such thing as "chemtrails". It is a conspiracy theory held by the deluded and insane. And somehow the world's climate scientists have missed this.

How do you know that?

Part of the problem is that you assume that correlation means that you have identified THE cause. When it may not even indicate A cause. Another other problem is that you are cherry picking data that supports your pre-existing prejudices.

1. We have to try our best to improve the world - locally and globally. 2. "Rebuild" is not the right word as it implies there once was a state of "paradise". There wasn't.

If you enjoy it, why not. If you like them, then maybe someone else will. But maybe that doesn't matter. As for creativity, it is of course essential to science. Possibly more so than art.

Well done. Why did that have to take so long? (I think the paper is complete hogwash but that is not relevant.)

Why should I look for your evidence for you. If you "know" that synaptic hypercomputation exists, then it should be trivial for you to provide appropriate references. Your inability to do this says all we need to know.

Then please provide this "scientific evidences of biological hypercomputation". I have asked you several times to do this. You have failed. Therefore there is no reason to think that it exists.

Yes.

I am quite calm, thank you. Of course not. But if you stop putting them after every sentence it won't look as if you think your assertions are funny. which will stop you looking like a troll. As you are claiming the existence of something that doesn't exist (hypercomputation) it would seem that you are the one lacking in understanding.

No evidence then. As there is no such thing as hypercomputation, and therefore no such thing as synaptic hypercomputation, that cannot be "appropriate technical language. It is meaningless gibberish.

Nonsense. You make assertions of fact ("Synaptic hypercomputation is a novel neurocomputational model") not suggestions of what might be; for example: "I would like to discuss a possible neurocompuational model based on interneuronal phase coherence and neuromodulation of monoaminergic pathways. (To maximise confusion, I have made up the meaningless term 'synaptic hypercomputation' for this.) Does anyone know of any evidence that might support such a model?" If you had done that, I would have ignored your posts as being of zero interest to me. If that were true you would be able to present some science. You have spectacularly failed to do that. I have no such duty. You are the one presenting the idea; it is your duty to back it up. Do that once more and I will assume you are trolling (as you appear to be) and report it to the moderators.

As all I am asking you to do is provide evidence, I do not need to use my imagination. I am asking you for evidence that "Synaptic hypercomputation" is not something you have made up. Therefore the evidence just needs to be a reference to the scientific literature on "Synaptic hypercomputation". As you have not provided this, I have to assume you have invented this concept. Is that correct? Then, at best, you should be presenting your ideas as hypotheses (or guesses) rather than facts. I would suggest you go away, do the experiments, gather the results do the careful analysis and then come back and tell us about it. Presenting your vague ideas, which you admit have no support, as facts is a waste of everyone's time.

Please provide evidence to support this claim.

Please provide evidence to support this claim.

Then you should be able to provide references to the scientific research on "Synaptic hypercomputation". As you can't do that, you should admit it is something you made up. You think I should imagine the evidence, rather than you providing it? Your lack of evidence makes the thread pointless.

Please provide some evidence to support this position. (You know, this being a science forum and all that.) They are experimental, you say. So it is science. Good.

There is no such thing. (And adding a smiley doesn't add any weight to your claims. It just makes you look even more flakey.)

My understanding is that the muscles are reconstructed based on the physiology of the bones, not an assumption that they must be "human-like" or "ape-like".

The wavelength is not 1 metre. It is c / 300 MHz = 0.999308193 metres.

If he presented his work in a journal rather than on Youtube, it might get the expert criticism it deserves. As I say, this is not a subject I know much about but I can't even begin to imagine what "to human parameters" means in this context. I assume that the bones of the limbs and the skull tell you all you need to know about the size and types of muscle attachments etc. I would love someone who knows how these reconstructions are done to confirm or deny that some sort of "human template" is required. (I can't see why it would be.) Actually, I have now read the article linked above and am convinced that his "theory" is complete nonsense.