View Full Version : Electromagnetic effects upon consciousness.


Kunga Dorji
05-26-11, 09:07 AM
Now I am sure that this article, and this website will be too "out there" for the tastes of many here.

However I find this topic genuinely intriguing-especially as I have recently had some electrically applied brain wave retraining ( by a kinesiologist ) that clearly and immediately improved my lifelong sleep problems.
The world is a more complicated place that the conventions of the safety seekers in this world tell us.

Now I know that just posting this will undoubtedly diminish my credibility with some people here- but look upon it as a test: Is your mind exploratory and curious enough to keep up - or not?

None of this stuff is "proven" or "written in stone" but these are questions worth asking- for those who have the courage to embark on such an enterprise.

A warning though- never assume you know what I believe. All that you can conclude about me from this really boils down to "What hypotheses is Barliman prepared to entertain?"

I can just see one poster here warning me yet again "not to keep my mind so wide open that my brains fall out". However he has already repeated that comment once, and to do it again would be to demonstrate the psychiatric symptom called "perseveration".

I hope you all enjoy this link as much as I have.

http://www.realitysandwich.com/2012_and_electromagnetic_effects_consciousness

Trooper Keith
05-26-11, 09:20 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet

Kunga Dorji
05-27-11, 07:22 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet


Thanks- this is an area of considerable interest currently.

Have you looked at the questions being raised about "electromagnetic smog" recently?
This is a very difficult area to figure out- with a serious dearth of significant research. However there are a few small references on Pub Med.

AbsentMindProf
05-27-11, 08:29 AM
I didn't have time to read the entire article but I read about 30% of it. My immediate reaction:

Much of their argument seems to involve the premise that there are vast, unused portions of the human brain. This seems to relate to old claim that people use only 10% of their brains. That's simply not true. I don't know of *ANY* area of the human brain that is unused.

Biologically, that would make absolutely no sense. The brain is an extremely metabolically expensive organ (which is why most animals have not evolved large brains). To have large areas of a brain that don't do anything would be a very maladaptive situation.

There is also the problem of how anyone could know that a given area of the brain is unused. I've spent much of my adult life doing neurophysiology and one of the first things you learn in this field is that different brain areas have different functions. There are specific brain areas, for example, that are involved in the generation of motor commands to move your right thumb. If you aren't moving your right thumb, these areas will be quite silent. That doesn't mean they serve no purpose -- it just means that these neurons aren't being used at this particular time.

Given the complexity of the human brain, then, and the equally complex range of human behaviors and responses, how could anyone possibly demonstrate that a given area of the brain is unused?

A few specific thoughts:

I am convinced that we are currently in the midst of a process involving the restructuring of our neuronal networks, and that the catalyst of this process is the high solar-geomagnetic activity whose consequences are feared by so many people today. However, all facts and findings add up to the undeniable conclusion that this evolution will for the first time in human history enable us human beings to use the enormous potential of our brains.

I don't understand how solar activity could rewire the human brain in any meaningful way. Also, we already use the enormous potential of our brains.

The average human brain contains a minimum of 10 billion individual neurons or nerve cells.

It's actually more than that. It's more like 50-100 billion.

In 1974 neurophysiologists discovered that some 10800 (10 to the 800th) interconnections come into play in this regard. The magnitude of this capacity is comparable with the following cosmic facts and figures: inasmuch as the atom is the smallest unit in the universe and the universe itself the largest, it is estimated that the universe contains a total of 1080 (10 to the 80th) atoms. In other words, the number of interactions in the human brain far exceeds the number of atoms in the universe.

No way. In fact, this is absurd on its face. Since one synapse involves a very large number of atoms, how could the number of connections exceed the number of atoms in the universe?

When the human brain is exposed to new impressions, as well as mental and emotional stimuli, new synapses (interfaces between neurons) are created.

Actually, I'm not at all sure that this is true. Learning is generally thought to involve changes in the strength of existing synapses, not the creation of new ones.

Walker believed that consciousness is not a chemical process or the like, but is instead attributable to a quantum mechanical tunnel process -- a theory that is consistent with the views of a growing number of quantum physicists and brain scientists.

Every neuroscientist I know (and I know MANY) laughs at this idea. If the author of the article wants to suggest that we are all wrong to laugh, that's fine. Provide convincing data and we'll change our minds. But to imply that the notion is currently becoming accepted by neuroscientists is just nonsense.

These connections are far from being well ordered for in fact, chaos is the mainstay of the brain's processes.

Again, no. After spending 15 years doing neurophysiology, I can tell you that the two things that impress me most about the activity of the brain are A) the astonishing complexity of it and B) the amazing degree of order in neural activity and neuronal circuitry.

These experiments convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt that human cells and electromagnetic fields do in fact interact; and this may in fact be one of the primary reasons why I decided to write this book.

There is some truth to this. Intraoperative neurophysiologists routinely use transcranial electrical stimulation to activate particular areas of the brain. So, it's certainly true that electromagnetic activity "outside" the brain can influence the brain's activity. However, this is VERY dependent on the strength of the stimulation. There is a fairly large electrical impedence associated with the skull, the dura, and the skin. To have any effect, neurophysiologists have to stick the electrodes directly to the scalp and use current levels that far exceed any that would result from changes in solar activity or any other remotely normal electromagnetic field.

Honestly, from what I was able to read, it doesn't look to me like the author has a good understanding of the subject.

zannie
05-27-11, 08:59 AM
Interesting article Barliman. I read only part of it but i will finish it when I get home again.

Although my beliefs lie closer to the articles about the nature of 2010 I agree with AbsentMindedProf. that some of the facts are incorrect especially regarding amount of the brain that is used. I am also under the impression that we use 100% of our brains already. I believe that the 10% myth is based on the old school idea that certain functions are in specific parts of the brain ie; sight, language etc.

Kunga Dorji
05-27-11, 04:48 PM
Interesting article Barliman. I read only part of it but i will finish it when I get home again.

Although my beliefs lie closer to the articles about the nature of 2010 I agree with AbsentMindedProf. that some of the facts are incorrect especially regarding amount of the brain that is used. I am also under the impression that we use 100% of our brains already. I believe that the 10% myth is based on the old school idea that certain functions are in specific parts of the brain ie; sight, language etc.

Quite clearly the 10% figure is just plain silly.

This is one of the big problems in articles like this- sorting out the wheat from the chaff.

That is the reason I introduced the article the way I did- because I certainly do not believe everything in it- and I would not want anyone to think that I do.

What we do know about brain function is that it is often very uncoordinated and there is often a functional disconnection between the 2 hemispheres as left brain activity (focal attention) suppresses right brain activity (gestalt attention).

One of the biggest changes my mindfulness practice has brought about is a degree of rebalancing of this tendency-- in most situations I am now actively body scanning with a view to maintaining equanimity even when doing very focussed tasks.

[Given my neck problem this is vital- because although the joint is back in place it is loose- and if I unmindfully hunch up at the computer I simply cut off the venous outflow from my brain, and turn on a stress response- and my intellectual acuity goes out the window. I can watch this happen in real time nowadays- AND I can confirm the stress response part of that observation by use of a little personal biofeedback device called an emWave personal stress meter.]