tkadm30

^Word salad, and off-topic at that

Dude, how do you want me to present you the stuff that they don't want you to read/observe?

Explain to me at least why you think artificial terrorism is not relevant to violent radicalisation/extremism ?

It just comes naturally, eh?

really, I like your sense of humour.

English is not my main language. I try my best to provide a coherent and functional language to make abstractions of concepts/ideas relevant to things like neuronal phase coherence.

It doesn't. Question, though. Do you happen to read papers while being high and feel that you understand them? Have you tried it without and maybe tried to summarize the content in your own words and then explained it to some of your friends?

I read scientific papers all the time in english. For me learning new things while being high is a very satisfactory (rewarding) experience. I use online forums to discuss with friends and the scientific community.

I think the generalized ignorance on artificial terrorism in media narratives is poorly understood. How far are we in understanding the neural correlates of violent radicalisation in our digitalized society ? Is it possible to weaponize artificial intelligence to create (fake) news story based on the official narratives?

I have tried to rationalize my ideas on experimentally accessing the subconscious system via pharmacological activation of endocannabinoid signaling. I think cannabis is a pragmatic learning tool especially useful to do experimental investigations on the psychology of altered states of consciousness.

I'm not trying to post a bunch word salad... I'm aiming at both general users and technical users interested in neuroscience and cannabis research to participate in a constructive manner on the implications of neural synchronicity and synaptic connectivity in the neuromodulation of consciousness.

I hope this helps.

I have never observed an aggressive behavior from playing video games. I concluded that the effects of playing video games on aggressivity may be inherently predetermined by genetic factors.

I agree that the scientific evidences of a correlation between video games and violence are poorly defined. In my opinion, playing video games may decrease violence as the user directs any behavioral aggressivity towards a video game rather than someone else.

 

• Then, your claim, alone, without more, automatically and instantly makes it suddenly become absolute, irrefutable, scientific fact, in the complete absense of extrinsic evidence. Your claim IS the evidence.

An observational evidence relates to the perceptual mind to construct viable hypotheses. The capacity of our imagination and creativity to represent abstract observational data is my opinion not a mental disorder but a function of our subconscious system in representing reality.

Music appreciation and cannabis usage may differentially affect long-range synchrony in the gamma-band. Although it has been reported that cannabis disrupts neural oscillations in the gamma-band, I argue that cannabis may "fine-tune" neural synchrony by enhancing musical perception.

In contrast, atypical antipsychotics may reduce the power of gamma oscillations associated with learning and cognitive functions.

 

 

Why can't you give a link to synaptic quantum tunneling? Is it because they all point back to a single article by Beck in 2008, published in Neuroquantology (what I've read is not exactly instilling a lot of confidence in the quality of that journal)?

 

The Beck paper is a famous study about interneuronal/synaptic quantum tunnelling in brain activity: It argue the role of synaptic exocytosis as a quantum-like regulator of neurocomputation.

 

 

If these are observable scientific phenomena then it should be easy for you to provide evidence.

 

Why is asking you to support your claims "harassment"?

 

And it isn't unilateral: everyone should be able to support their claims. Of course if someone claims that gravity follows an inverse square law, then they are unlikely;iekly to be asked to support that. It is common knowledge. But f someone claims a massive secret worldwide conspiracy, then I would expect at least an attempt to support it.

 

Asking you to provide evidence is not elitism. It is the way science works.

 

But you dislike the rigour and methods required, apparently.

 

Providing evidences is not the way science works. This is just a unilateral policy that dictate how should I discover the truth in my observations. It is harassment to

consistantly require evidences checking to validate a experimental observation. You guys seriously need to use your imagination and creativity to search (the Internet) for "evidences" and connections. I do not need empirical evidences to do legitimate investigations: I have a scientific method and legitimate reasons to investigate my local observations.

Great. (That wasn't so hard, was it?). Now you just have to show us where QED is mentioned as being tied in to all of this.

The enhanced cortical computation by gamma-band synchronicity is a quantum phase transition

of interneuronal activity. (known as "synaptic quantum tunnelling")

 

 

 

So you are not able to quote anywhere in the article that discusses quantum effects. That is what I thought.

 

I suppose neuronal phase coherence (synchronicity) is a form of quantum computation by phase-transition-driven exocytosis.

You can use your leisure for more useful things.

I'm deeply fascinated by science.

Learning new knowledges from science is the best leisure I know.

I'm just observing a form of moderation and control on Internet forums based on unilateral scientific radicalisation of

experimental research. Is experimental research prohibited on the Internet? This form of elitism appears to me as detrimental to

the neutrality of science.

Everyone has noticed that you still haven't answered the question.

 

 

But what do these terms, like "cortical computation", mean? You're using them, which implies that you should know. So instead of saying "complete your education", how about you answer the question?

Cortical computation is the capacity to the prefrontal cortex to neuromodulate/fine-tune optimal synaptic connectivity.

You have, in the past, claimed repeatedly, and without any supporting evidence, that geoengineering is a widespread current practice.

Do you want to argue that my observations of clandestine geoengineering activity are cognitive abnormalities? I'm new to this forum. I have not done extensive research of geoengineering in this forum so far. I'm sick of this harassement to require unilateral evidences of observable scientific phenomenons. Observability of abstract phenomenons is experimental research. I think we should not prohibit experimental research on the assertion that evidences do not exist.

 

 

I second Strange's call for a response here. I couldn't find any mention of QED. By disagreeing, you are claiming that it's mentioned. Where?

 

The only thing resembling QM here is that you seem to be in a superposition claiming knowledge and ignorance at the same time.

Haha, thats a good one...

 

enable neural synchronization

i think neural synchronicity and synaptic quantum tunnelling are implicated in the neuromodulation of exocytosis, promoting enhanced cortical computation.(Phase coherence and synchronicity are two sides of the same coin.)

The radicalisation of modern science is an important ethical issue. I think we should not let the Internet become a elite tool to enforce, control, and moderate experimental research based on unilateral ideology. For example the radicalisation of geoengineering is a idea which should be discussed freely to identify the risks and consequences of this classified activity. When evidences are not provided by the author of a posting, I guess its pretty easy to use Google and search without harassing the author of false claims. Furthermore, threats are not welcome as formal method to provide any feedback on a post. I guess civilism applies also to "moderators" of the forum.

What is an enhanced cortical computation? Is it any activity in the prefrontal cortex, something in the singulate gyrus, or just words you're throwing around to try sounding smart?

 

Also, when did you show there is a correlation in the first place? One must first demonstrate the existence of that prior to understanding how it functions.

 

I suggest you first complete your education to understand the neurocomputational capacity of the brain. I don't claim to have deep knowledge on things below the threshold of my consciousness. Your emotionality reflects well the state of ignorance you are in when replying with such nonsense.

This will be my only comment here. You really haven't clarified your use of terms or provided a cogent foundation for this highly theoretical topic. Perhaps these link will help with the latter: Quantum Mind and Quantum Cognition.

Thanks for your reply and links. I have not understood yet how neuronal phase coherence correlates to enhanced cortical computations. I suspect that neuronal synchronicity in the gamma band neuromodulate conscious/subconscious processes.

 

 

That says nothing, zero, zilch, nada about QED or anything else related to quantum theory.

 

I disagree.

My impressions is that neural synchronicity is poorly understood. I'm looking for opinions to better understand neural synchronicity and phase coherence in terms of quantum electrodynamics.

...

Vitamin D is a natural ACE-inhibitor essential to parasympathetic stimulation and serotonergic control of hypertension.

My experimental research on mental thoughts amplification suggests that gamma-band neural oscillations can be modulated by synaptic (dopamine) exocytosis.

My apologies. Here's an updated link:

 

An important link between oscillations and cortical computations was the discovery of the role of oscillatory rhythms in the beta/gamma range (20–80 Hz) in establishing precise synchronization of distributed neural responses. Gray and colleagues^6,7 showed that action potentials generated by cortical cells align with the oscillatory rhythm in the beta and gamma range, which has the consequence that neurons participating in the same oscillatory rhythm synchronize their discharges with very high precision. Thus, it is a central role of cortical oscillations in the beta/gamma range to enable neuronal synchronization.^4,5

 

 

Is that really an area of study? I'm aware of a few very basic inquiries of QM and brain activity that one would consider to be legitimate. But most are "quantum consciousness" schlock.

The quantum brain dynamics (QBD) theory is a legitimate area of study and emerging neuroscience field. However, is neural synchronicity a legitimate model to study phase-transition-driven systems?

This campaign of disinformation about the cannabis-induced brain damage is financed by global pharmaceuticals companies who also sells a lot of antipsychotic medications...

Just saying.