Is the brain a computer?

[Nocapszy]

Those are collages, not holograms.

It sounds more like you're talking about consciousness than the brain itself.

 

[Eldanen]

Yeah. But I still stated my opinion on the brain, that it was a router to me, not a computer. Of course, you could get nitpicky and say that a router can be a computer with a microprocessor... lol.

 

[ygolo]

OK. So I played on "the brain is a digital computer side for a while"...and the best I could think of is that maybe someday we will be able to simulate/emulate human thinking. Still a possibility, but there are some obvious differences betwee the way a brain "computes" and the way a computer does.

These may have been mentioned before, and most of it comes from my reading of On Intelligence.

1) The brain is more like a memory than a CPU. Consider the following facts: Even the best human computers can't keep up with our CPUs in direct calculating. Even the most powerful processing systems do poorly at object recognition and acting based on this. It is not a simple matter of parallel processing vs. serial...i suppose that is a fairly complex story.

2) Human memory is not like digital memory. It is lossy, naturally content-based, distributed, and heirarchichal. Digital memory is usually address based, and the heirarchy is designed for coherence and accuracy, not based on content. Content-addressable memory is much more expensive hardware than normal memory.

3) Consiousness is still not understood. How does it emerge from our hierarchical distributed content based neural network w/ feedback(or wherever)?

 

[Nocapszy]

Yeah. But I still stated my opinion on the brain, that it was a router to me, not a computer. Of course, you could get nitpicky and say that a router can be a computer with a microprocessor... lol.

Yeah, and I could also say that because it's got four wheels, it's a car. It's a loose definition to be sure.

What I'm trying to get at is I think you're basing your opinion - a belief really, but I'll try not to get nitpicky - on either no information, or bad information.

Your way of thinking opens a floodgate for astrology to be recognized as a legitimate field of psychology.

Psychology, while it is a great interest of mine, is by definition a mysterious empirical science; all findings in the science are noted as statistical generalities, while causes are mostly left out.

We know things like selective awareness (pardon my misnomer - I don't feel like searching for the proper term. This will have to suffice) because we experience it, and we have anthropological explanations, but we don't know the actual physical chemistry responsible for this. Until we blend neurology with psychology we'll not know why we think the way we think, or feel what we feel, on a physical level.

The notion that the brain is like a router, or a radio is probably induced by the illusion of consciousness. It really seems like there's some kind of transcendent awareness to us - this is where most people become confused and approach religion. It seems like for us to have consciousness, there must be something divine about it right?

They don't realize that it is possible (and from what I've read, it's being confirmed, and is on its way to becoming a commonly accepted fact) for everything that we consciously know and touch and taste and see and feel and whatever to be the result of billions of microscopic daisy-chains, all working parallel to form a cohesive whole.

I could be wrong though.
Hint: Senses = antenna of the router.

I don't mean to shatter your belief, I just think it deserves a bit more toiling over.

 

[zarc]

As far as evidence goes, I have nothing empirical . I just took what I knew about the brain supposedly being holographic, and mixed it with the idea of "phasing". More info on that here:

Phasing Resource

I remember Frank from Astral Dynamics Forums. If I recall correctly, Phasing is just another term for projecting. I'm highly curious. Do you project, whether consciously or not? Before you ask, I do both.

Yeah, and I could also say that because it's got four wheels, it's a car. It's a loose definition to be sure.

What I'm trying to get at is I think you're basing your opinion - a belief really, but I'll try not to get nitpicky - on either no information, or bad information.

If I were more confident about projecting consciously, I'd try to prove it to you. (edit: Information I have can be seen as subjective, okay, but I've proven it to others, such as a sceptic HS religion teacher who never looked the same at me again and a few family/friends. Without prior information beforehand. I've also had visions which were noted/written to others ("proof") and came true ("told you so!" ^^). I wish I were more articulate about it all or that there is more empirical data to prove such a thing but I'm a little lazy and I wager there'd be moot point unless I could be more knowledgable about something I've experienced so well.

I will say by no means did I accept these things easily and I was much more fanciful about it as a child.

If it were taken more seriously by the scientific community, maybe progress will occur. How long ago was it that science, itself, was so rejected by religious society at large before being allowed to expand and explore (and still is attacked on religious grounds; stem cell etc)? The bare roots of 'science' was once considered a natural philosophic pursuit anyway.

I'd like to comment on the brain-router analogy. Studies are showing how frequent use of cell phones (and other technologies) are proving to effect the brain, causing brain tumors etc. I think it's widely known how long-term use of EMWs from TVs/computers/microwaves negatively effect the brain. You could say we unknowingly tune in to these frequencies.

 

[Eldanen]

I remember Frank from Astral Dynamics Forums. If I recall correctly, Phasing is just another term for projecting. I'm highly curious. Do you project, whether consciously or not? Before you ask, I do both.

Well, to me, I've got three levels of existence laid out. You have Awareness, Energetic, and Physical. There are two ways to OBE, in my pov. You can do it on an energetic level, which is the classic way of doing it, or you can just go up to the higher level and change your focus and awareness. Either way, it's up to you. So to me, it's not just another term of projecting, it's just another method of achieving the same (or a similar) effect.

 

[zarc]

Well, to me, I've got three levels of existence laid out. You have Awareness, Energetic, and Physical. There are two ways to OBE, in my pov. You can do it on an energetic level, which is the classic way of doing it, or you can just go up to the higher level and change your focus and awareness. Either way, it's up to you. So to me, it's not just another term of projecting, it's just another method of achieving the same (or a similar) effect.

So um, do you do it? O_O I take it as a yes lol

I wish I bothered to learn more about phasing when I had the chance before on AD Forum. So I'm uncertain what you mean when you say energetic level vs just going up. If one projects, one can choose to go up or anyway/where they'd like. If you mean to say that phasing allows you to enter a different focus/focal point or awareness (I think I remember terms of Focus 5 Focus 9 etc), okie. But energy, we as energy or we manipulating our own energy, is still required to make the transition, right? O_O

Gah, I meant phasing as another method not another term. Mind you, I haven't looked into discussion on OBE etc for a few years so I may not be as up to date as you are.

 

[Eldanen]

So um, do you do it? O_O I take it as a yes lol

I wish I bothered to learn more about phasing when I had the chance before on AD Forum. So I'm uncertain what you mean when you say energetic level vs just going up. If one projects, one can choose to go up or anyway/where they'd like. If you mean to say that phasing allows you to enter a different focus/focal point or awareness (I think I remember terms of Focus 5 Focus 9 etc), okie. But energy, we as energy or we manipulating our own energy, is still required to make the transition, right? O_O

Gah, I meant phasing as another method not another term. Mind you, I haven't looked into discussion on OBE etc for a few years so I may not be as up to date as you are.

Haha. To be honest, I haven't actually OBEd willfully yet, period. My knowledge is based on some information I've gathered about the experiences of other people, and just some principles that I've worked out on my own.

When I said "go up to a higher level" in my previous post, I made an implicit assertion that the level of "awareness" has more "power" to it than the energetic level. You can get more done on an awareness level than an energetic level. In order to move and manipulate energy, you have to use awareness. Awareness governs energy, and energy governs the physical matter and environment we see. For phasing, no energy is required to make the transition, because you are merely changing your point of view. Sorta like looking at an object from a different angle to get a different perception. To me, all reality is a whole, but you can get different snapshots of it by looking at it from different angles, forward, backward, etc. Ninety degrees, a hundred eighty degrees, so on. When you've phased to another focus level, you can actually go back and "pick up" your energy body later. Awareness is consciousness, being. It just is.

 

[zarc]

Haha. To be honest, I haven't actually OBEd willfully yet, period. My knowledge is based on some information I've gathered about the experiences of other people, and just some principles that I've worked out on my own.

When I said "go up to a higher level" in my previous post, I made an implicit assertion that the level of "awareness" has more "power" to it than the energetic level. You can get more done on an awareness level than an energetic level. In order to move and manipulate energy, you have to use awareness. Awareness governs energy, and energy governs the physical matter and environment we see. For phasing, no energy is required to make the transition, because you are merely changing your point of view. Sorta like looking at an object from a different angle to get a different perception. To me, all reality is a whole, but you can get different snapshots of it by looking at it from different angles, forward, backward, etc. Ninety degrees, a hundred eighty degrees, so on. When you've phased to another focus level, you can actually go back and "pick up" your energy body later. Awareness is consciousness, being. It just is.

O_O Ahhhh! I see what you mean that one's awareness with OBE will effect the power of it. I don't see how there's an enegertic level to control err? Energy just is, that. Awareness is consciousness, yes, but we as energetic beings can perceive that awareness. When I meant energy is required, it's not just in terms of exertion, it's just that we are a body of energy.

It's the same with the physical body. When we are healthy, we allow ourselves to perform fully or better as we have ample supply of energy to keep us moving. Our cells collectively relegate for whatever system in peak performance. When we are sick, our energy depletes and we can't exert ourselves the same. Cells break down and disease occurs. So when I apply it to projecting, phasing too, and what I've experienced... is that if one's physical body is lacking the proper amount of energy (being healthy), it's much harder to control projection (can't speak of phasing, tho).

Also, when one is ill or dying too, it's easier to project because we aren't as energetically rooted in our bodies as when we were functioning much healthier/younger. It's not recommended but I've known people who've tried to cause projections due to lethargy...

If you know anything about Sleep Parlaysis, which by Robert Bruce, is considered a partial form of the energy body wanting to naturally project but somehow is hampered. By low energy, being unhealthy etc. Spontaneous projection occurs in the same fashion, just unexpectedly, but I'd assume someone is healthy if it isn't hard to control or it's hard to control when someone isn't healthy . I speak of all three from personal experience, in both positive and negative situations. When I was 13 until 19 (and to a certain degree now, I'm 21), I had heinous SP attacks and I was also ill at the time and was very lethargic (low energy). Mostly horrible, but sometimes nice. The SP coupled with my illness, though, beget a viscious cycle. I'd experience upwards of 20+ SP attacks a night/whenever I slept.. I also had Spontaneous projections but they always occured when I wasn't as lethargic or were scary if I was lethargic.

So, if one has a health energy body/physical body, then phasing wouldn't require much effort, I'd assume. Phasing to me, not that I've looked it up yet, reminds me of one particular experience (the only one of its kind) where I projected spontaneously and I felt myself as though I were peeling out of my skin. It was the most clearest and easiest way I ever got out. And where I went....

Another thing, which somewhat relates to the brain-router analogy again. I suffered an attack which resulted in a head injury when I was 15. My projections/SParalysis were never the same for years. As my physical skull was hurt, it worsened my ability to function both physically and on an projection-related scale. Now I find myself healed to a certain degree and I've reverted back to being able to do things I once was able to with control. My awareness didn't change my ability to project a certain way but my lack of energy/being hurt did. Until now

Great luck in experiencing any of the above or all for yourself!

 

[Nocapszy]

If I were more confident about projecting consciously, I'd try to prove it to you.

Prove what to me?

(edit: Information I have can be seen as subjective, okay, but I've proven it to others, such as a sceptic HS religion teacher who never looked the same at me again and a few family/friends. Without prior information beforehand. I've also had visions which were noted/written to others ("proof") and came true ("told you so!" ^^).

I wish I were more articulate about it all or that there is more empirical data to prove such a thing but I'm a little lazy and I wager there'd be moot point unless I could be more knowledgable about something I've experienced so well.

I wish you were more articulate too. Was the entire point of the above to tell me that you're not going to do something you say you could?

I will say by no means did I accept these things easily and I was much more fanciful about it as a child.

If it were taken more seriously by the scientific community, maybe progress will occur. How long ago was it that science, itself, was so rejected by religious society at large before being allowed to expand and explore (and still is attacked on religious grounds; stem cell etc)? The bare roots of 'science' was once considered a natural philosophic pursuit anyway.

If you're trying to compare the rigidity of the scientific community to that of the religious, you can stop now. They both have entirely different reasons for discrediting information.

I'd like to comment on the brain-router analogy. Studies are showing how frequent use of cell phones (and other technologies) are proving to effect the brain, causing brain tumors etc. I think it's widely known how long-term use of EMWs from TVs/computers/microwaves negatively effect the brain. You could say we unknowingly tune in to these frequencies.

What?

Please expound on all of this. I'm not sure what you 'know' is rooted very firmly.

 

[Carebear]

I read the thing about cell phones somewhere as well. Some studies seem to suggest a weak correlation between brain tumors and cell phones (though inconclusive), but they generally suggest it might be the heat and not EMVs that cause it (IF it's related).

 

[zarc]

Bare with me, I barely fared with myself

Prove what to me?

Well, I could say you live in Arizona (not that you do~) or that you drive a blue pontiac.

Ex 1. I was broached about AP from my HS religion teacher. He asked me in front of others (whether to insult, can't say) to prove it by telling him how his house looked like (and I had no previous knowledge of it). So I did, told him the colour of it and the roof's colour/type of tile, how the front door was etc. He became shocked, I guess, because he then tried asking me what angle on the street it was. I told him. Afterwards, he never quite spoke so openly to me again. Nice, just not open. Students around us then tried bothering me with requests for w/e they wanted proven or done for them. Now you could say that was a fluke of luck or what have you.

Ex 2. I was randomly projecting in an 'realm' referred to as the Real Time Zone (essentially a mirror of this world's reality), and I was suddenly drawn to an old friend whom I'd not been in contact with for years. I called her up, told her "I may be wrong, but your room looks like its walls are black." I wasn't certain because, who the hell paints their walls black (really, you do? JK!), firstly, and secondly, I knew her taste as something different.

She was shocked because a few days prior she had painted her walls black. When I visited her room a week after it was still black though the room itself was not exactly as I'd seen it. That's some of the problem with AP unless you are proficient at it (and sometimes even then!).

I have other examples but no need to regurgitate a different colour when we've seen enough green as it is. I think they suffice as somewhat reasonable explanations of my accounts. Oh, and there's no reason for you to believe me or take any of that as proof for yourself, as rightly you shouldn't and probably won't lol but I thought it might help you understand what I meant. So yea, up to you or anyone else reading this on how you choose to digest the pretty colour.

Even in the real world, we subjectify our experience. We then compartmentalize what we see, hear, etc then rationalize. Sure you could say but it's in the 'real' world and 99% of things pertaining to a physical attribute is collectively and readily agreed upon. You point at a tree and I see the same tree. You point at the wind and I..

But perhaps we perceive it differently or subjectify its meaning. The colour or whatnot or "Was that thing we saw two seconds ago real? I can't remember damnit!". We recall memory of events differently or even as it's happening differently. Compartmentalizing in the cerebral hemispheres right or left and then off to specilized functions/neurons attributing the processes of:

(real terms) Encoding/processing information, Storage/creation record of encoding and Retrieval /recall of the storage, sounds like a computer~

So, um, to relate this back to the 'brain as a computer' analogy, we code things on our own, are encoded (by parents, society etc), input new data as it comes which is not readily apparent as the processes involved are too complex to be shown at surface level thus allocated to systems capable of directing what goes where and what little bit of that is safe enough for us to know/see as not to implode upon impact of that knowledge annnd lastly, sometimes that data seems misplaced or distorted over time but never is it lost. We receive sensory memory in about as fast as 500 milliseconds after we see anything Snap snap snap shots!

Hey, we take pictures faster than cameras! I can already see a company trying to market some new technology of retrieving memory from the brain and dispensing it in some neat little printer. *patents it* *prepares legality for claims of brain-failure*

Okay, I did a project in gr.11 on what I'd like to invent except it was of dream-retrieval-and display on a little screen but um moving on.

I can't recall if it was from my psych proff or where I got this from (bad neural relay to the hippocampus of DD's brain!) but we just can't 'take in' every little thing that we see otherwise the brian will implode. We holistically look at ojects/environments in chunks, relaying it in the brain and instinctivelly or really, in a neural interconnected pathway, does it spit it back out for us to perceive- If I were to look at you, I don't see individual parts of your face (eyes, nose hairs etc) unless I want to zoom in and even same process cycle.

Not so unrelated. A person who has a dysfunction of some sort or its agreed this person has it. Said person may perceive things differently than we (normal/healthier) people do. Do we then just simply discount and say "they're crazy" etc? Or can we not think it's valid for them because we know not what they are perceiving, only that it differs from our own and we merely cannot comprehend it?

Before you say this is invalid itself, as a person with a mental dysfunction resulted from what Western psychiatrists generally believe from biopsychosocial (incorportating biological, psychological, and sociological) conditions. Should schizos/psychos/etc be discounted as what they may see or perceive can be agreed by us as 'not making comprehensive sense'?

That's just it! It's not sensical to us but to them. Yes, I know you know this. That being said, I'm not saying to take instruction or 'believe' what a hobo spouting off the street corner says about you being the soot off their foot. Just that as they are seeing, sensing and understanding something on a level completely foreign to us, we shouldn't just write it off so easily even if we understand that something is wrong with them. It's more complex than that.

Not so long ago these types of people were thought, by society, to be possessed by 'demons/devils'. It wasn't until science sought to rectify that notion by studying the mechanisms of mental disease: the hows/whys it occurs and how to remedy it. Otherwise, we'd still believe it.

After a brain injury, you could say, that the hardwiring has become distorted. Some people after brain injury relate different experiences or feelings or their nerve endings respond differently than when they didn't have the injury. For example, people with spinal chord injury. I recall watching a show on how they were once thought to never again have sex or their nerve endings were never again to allow them to feel the nerve impulse/sensation of it. Yet they were showed one sex therapist's work on helping her patients by 'relaying' a different nerve map, you could say, on a different part of the body to incite a sexual response. Like a foot, for example. Over repeated 'rerouting' the brain remembers this new 'link' of relay points for sexual response thus whenever touched they'll get it up or get it on. It may have begun weakly but erring out the kinks of this new software helped it to stay in the hardware of the brain.

Hope I made sense.

I wish you were more articulate too. Was the entire point of the above to tell me that you're not going to do something you say you could?

No, only once I become much better at it, and if you want and we still have contact with one another, I'll prove it to you. I'm willing to try to do it now, if you want. Though no excuse (though you can call it one) I suffered a head injury stemmed from attack at age 15 and nevermind the consequences of it (so glad I can speak to ya, tho you may not like what I'm saying ) it's been somewhat trying to get to the state that I was at prior. As I said, if you want, I could try. Btw, those examples were attained before my injury. Although I've still had projections afterward, it was just a bit harder to retain the state or to recall or have nice ones but I digress.

So, assuming I try to find you and think I have, right or wrong then, you can discount all that I've said Even if I was 'right' on one thing yet 'wrong' an another. So you don't live in Arizona but you drive a blue pontiac? A guess! nothing more lol. In fact, when anyone believes me so easily, I don't like it and ask that they discover it for themselves or allow me to show differently (I find it funny though that most people ask me not to as though afraid of what I might discover!) I know the danger of people wishing or believing so easily or erroneusly because it's just so friggen cool

I once had an intro business teacher discuss a specific experience I'd shared. She surmised I was "gifted from god"- hate when people do that. It's not mystical or gifted. ANYone can acheive it. Hell, even meditation was once considered only for those who had a certain disposition or calmness etc. Now, it's popularized and loads of people are trying to do it. Just one more thing I dislike about fads or trying to market things to people.

If you're trying to compare the rigidity of the scientific community to that of the religious, you can stop now. They both have entirely different reasons for discrediting information.

Yes, the reasons are different, but they correlate as the interest of one affects the other. Science consistently finds ways on how the universe functions and why that might be so. It's a threat to religion.

Even when it came to medicine, originally, it was a threat to religious doctrine. "God" saw fit to punish/lovingly take the soul and all we can do is pray. To "stop" god with medicine was sacriligious.

Anyway, I was just trying to point out the correlation. There's a dichotomy and as I said science was rooted in philosophic pursuit branched from religious pursuit to understand 'god'

Galileo was imprisoned for life because he discovered the Earth revolved around the Sun and staunchly refused to rescind (good ol'chap). It took the Church hundreds of years before they pardoned him. Okay, so that's a religious dispute.

Would you trust religion or science? Both? I understand yet don't understand why people can believe in both. This is coming from someone who is telling you she can "fly" to your bedroom or to the Milky Way. "Go figures", right?.

It takes an open mind to try to adopt/learn of something completely foreign to one's acredited knowledge. Same thing applies even to the scientific community. Not every scientist at the time had their idea adopted or accepted so easily. Many have had to wage their own little wars to get people to open up to new possibilities. That's what's so beautiful about it. So you'll say, well, that's it, they found hard evidence for their theories to back it up. How can something like "astral projection" be proven? Some are trying to do just that. Give them time. Meanwhile, if you can't project yourself or don't care to try, maybe you can toy with the idea or try to learn why it might that people experience it. Or not-

What?

Please expound on all of this. I'm not sure what you 'know' is rooted very firmly

Research on Brain and Biological Effects of Cell Phones

This site has links to various articles/sources from all over the world, from dedicated scientists/experts/reporters. I will say I did not peer over most of these articles so I can't substantiate it all. Based off of the small info to each one, I read all and agree with all. However, if you choose, read all for yourself and you can come to any conclusion you want.

But if one has knowledge that a cell phone radiates, however small as opposed to a larger and more powerful unit, you could say it won't affect us as strongly. However continous exposure over time, one can assume even without expertise, that it'll affect us somehow. Why? Because we do know heavy radiation is bad for us and once upon a time it was not known until the effects were seen on factory workers. They still are at risk for cancers!

Reduce Brain Exposure to Cell Phones I liked the picture and they have some preventive measures (don't know how credible as I didn't really read beyond the exposure part*gasp* though I will later *too busy typing*)

Cell phones are the most used electronic device in the world (even 3rd World countires have them) since its inception became more accessible. In some countries, it's used more than landline phones! The "Leapfrog Effect" (skip the less effient/inferior form and move right to the advanced one) )

By all means it's not a given fact yet or accepted by all and above and beyond that it causes cancers of the brain but as I said "studies"-- have moved past finding links, made inexhaustible research and evidence, and are actively trying to reach out to companies at hand/government and the people. I'm surprised they got this far. Look at the environment-

Will people stop using/reduce use? Nah, probably not but again I disgress (you've probably noticed by now, maybe even miffed, that I tend to do this )

So it's not merely what I know but what numerous researchers know whom I've decided were legitimate in their fields and can trust them because I do not have their degrees. Does that mean if they said cell phones were safe and proven safe, I'd readily believe them? Maybe if they had extensive research and proof but that would apply to most people, I'd think.

It wasn't even thought of being harmful until diseases cropped up that notice was given, though that generally applies to most technologies or diseases or anything afflicting some guy's foot. Usually it takes a modicum of relative incidences and accounts before someone's nose perks up and then more noses and--- yeah, big business's a bitch but we gotta love'em, they keep us distracted from the seemingly endless tedium that is called Life.

Contiuing, when we are not educated in the same fields we try to rely on others who are and their accuracy or expertise and opinions may vary. It's up to us to deterimine whom we will follow based off of their research and similiar research from other experts.

Then again, so many 'experts' have put the wool over our eyes. So it's about trust and then hardcore action! I mean evidence!

So please don't insult me because you find me lacking in that expertise. I don't know if you were a little miffed at my "knowledge" of astral projection and lack of 'proof' and thought to ascribe in this case but that does not sum up my being nor does it tell you my education or anything else other than that it is something I do.

If I may point out dreams as an example. Widely experienced by all peoples all over the world. Was once seen as something mystical/given from god/s then simply "what we do when we sleep". Then we learn of REM and so on. It was not something actively pursued in terms of explaination for thousands of years, however it was and is something of inspiration for billions of people when remembered.

Maybe you'll experience something similiar to what I or Eldanen is talking about. S/he admits to not having any experience I've mentioned yet is willing to be open to the possibility. You may discount that. And probably Eldanen shouldn't be so conclusive about it just yet (though I'm not sure but just in case) but once s/he has that experience then it's really nice. I, for one, as I've said have had numerous experiences stemming from childhood alllll the way to my tender age of 21 and even then I didn't just take it for granted. I hunted for the why/how/where the hell these things happen.

Professor Cheyne from my previous university was gathering info on a condition called Sleep Paralysis (which I've suffered from and partook in his study, I think, 3-4 years from about age 15-17ish). Trust in that expertise, and no, I'm not being snappy when I say that. I genuinely mean it.

I can't hash it out all here but basically during the hypnagogic and hypnopompic states (sleeping/between dreams/waking)what happens to an SP sufferer is that they wake up while their body is still asleep (the body is paralysed), either upon any point between falling asleep or during heavy REM/dreaming or any point as they are waking up. Thus awake while parlaysed. Sometimes referred to as Wake Paralysis.

Back to the brain-computer-storing info-thingie. During REM, which consist of two divisions: tonic and phasic, and we experience it about 20-25% of our total sleep time during our adult lives. REM is 90min to 120ish min. So we get about 4-6 neural bursts of activity during it. I mention this, no I swear I'm not parting the tide yet again as it counts!, as it is during this stage of REM (dreaming etc) which is physiologically different than the rest of our sleep. Why oh why is that important? Well, we recall most of our dreams from that state. Why oh why is that important?

Well, my dear sir or madam if you've been hanging this whole time and aren't aware of this, there are theories (yes, theories not known facts yet! ) that specific memories from the day or so are merged or congested into that litle bit of REM time/space. Lots of lots of lots of studies imply that it's sooooooo important for our procedural/unconcious memory and for our spatial/recording info memory. Do you recall what I said about holistically gathering info and then our brain storing it? Well, that's one possible suggestive theory of why we do that (and not implode upon first opening our eyes after the fruition from that developing embryogenetic state :hi: )

I won't explain why Sleep Paralysis (SP) happens as it's entirely too f*cking long and this post has vampirized my energy

However, depending on what stage REM is at and depending on the individual, we can either experience/perceive vivid or blurry visual hallucinations or auditory hallucinations or sensate (a heavy feeling etc) hallucinations. Any or all can a person have. Its duration can last anywhere between a few seconds to minutes, though somewhat rarely longer though it's been noted. As to the frequency, any kind can be had. Once week, every day etc

It's believed everyone has experienced it at least once in their life (or recalls it). Maybe you did or someone on the board has or can recall. Some wake up, can't move, go back to sleep without hallucinatory incident. BUT they 'saw' their room.

Some of us aren't so lucky~~ So, it's interesting maybe, but why would I bring up another incredible thing for you to discount? SP and AP are somewhat similiar and certain individuals are discovering the link between them and that people who suffer from SP (such as myself) may be disposed to having AP experiences. At least more easily or naturally than others who are trying to but have never succeeded (some try their entire lives and have failed) or succeeded with more difficulty.

At this point in time, I believe research has only been for 15 years or so, there is not nearly enough comprehension as to why it happens. It's been reported for thousands of years in nearly all cultures that have written about it. Yup, written. Shakesphere mentions (I found it by myself in gr.9) the "old hag who lies upon maidens in their sleep". Others ficitonal works abound. Other literature, such as the bible, mentions it. Know of Adam's first wife? Lilith, the "original" succubus of the (edit Jewish Torah. If you know of Sumer, the "first" civilisation, and their mythologies touted as the original text upon nearly all other religions have taken root from, then you may know of "Ki-sikil-lil-la-ke" the original Lilith.

The Old Hag, Incubus/Succubus myths/countless others in different societies wrote about it. Sleep Paralysis. Yea, it's wikipedia and by no means is it entirely accurate but you can get the gist of it (if you don't want to trust what I know). At the bottom of the page note the works of fiction in which SP is described at length or mentioned.

When it comes to Sleep Parlaysis or Astral Projection or any other paranormal phenomena there has been an incredible berth (yes, berth) or breadth or accounts. Can we just discount them because we don't understand them yet? I mean, we have wonderful science and technological marvels, mainy don't understand but take for granted anyway, yet we still have people believing in god/s but again, so I'll stop here~~

Trust me or not when I say I did not so easily believe theories about any of it. There is a lot of information from people who have either had these experiences or similiar or speculate about them. I've discrimated and found not only what I felt was applicable to me or comfortable to me but what made the most sense. Maybe I'm not as articulate as someone else with a PhD but I fancy myself somewhat intelligent and sincere. Maybe after university I pursue a PhD in w/e field warrants your respect or value of my input a little more easily than without, you won't discount all that I've said on that basis I can't prove it as of yet~ .

And if you still think any that I've said is bullshit (since you like to eradicate it~), I like to think I've decimated some bullshit of my own off of these topics (and others like most UFOs experiences but I digress. ) for a lottt of people who try to mystify or otherwise have information I've found lacking or based on little to no experience. Or even with lots of experience!

I really hope I cleared out some kinks and maybe you're a little , just a little microscopically inclined to open up about something so foreign and inexplicable to you.

Aside from all this, I'm sorry for moving the thread away from the original question as it's somewhat rude (unless dissonance is still aware and doesn't mind or thinks it might relate) . If you want, we can continue this either privately if you're uncomfortable (ooooh don't worry, I'll make you comfortable ) or in a new thread or not at all. I don't mind.

If so, let's keep discussing!

And you may not care for it, or find it gussshy, but I'm going to thank you anyway. It's when people are willing to conflict with ourselves that we can take a step back and really recall what it is we are so passionate or conclusive about. If you remember what I said to Eldanen (though, really, who can remember all the crap I've spewed), I said I haven't peered into or discussed this for a few years. Still coasting the experience on a regular basis but it's a good thing to question and snap those pesky old wires of the brain into recalling info lain dormant and why the hell I'm so fortunate enough to even know what it is I'm experiencing!

Maybe it's sadistic of me (username: deliriousdisposition! it rings true.) but it's people like you (seriously!) whom are more skeptical at heart that make me feel more comfortable rather than the jumping enthusiast who'd rather believe every little thing without info or common sense. It taught me not to speak about such topics or if so not to so easily capitulate my knowledge to people. There was this one girl who I proved it to --- but I shouldn't tell you as your faith in the somewhat reasonable nature humanity touts at the top to the rest of the animal kingdom may dwindle. *shudders*



So, Nocapszy, assuming you had the patience to read all, if I sounded as though I was toying with you or maybe even contentious for w/e reason, it was unintentional and just me having fun with you . Not at, with.

Oh eh... and t'wasyou who nicely asked me to expound so um expound I did

So maybe I'm not sure what I know or how rooted it is but what I remember

Note: If any of what I aside from AP/SP is partially correct, tell me as I went along systematically drudging through data from my half-asleep/malfunctioning computer/brain that had become somewhat stagnant and dormant, which had been thought discarded or crashed out

What kept me from freezing to total shut down? Interpol - Obstacle 2 + Rest My Chemistry

Note to any who is aware: I've come to the conclusion I'll never be able to write a short response to spite my tongue.

Edit: Amusingly serenditipitous. Checked my email after writing this beast. A newsletter I'm subscribed sent this link:Cell Phone "Tower of Doom"

 

[wildcat]

i was in my social psychology class today, and my teacher started out saying "i'm gonna give a bunch of examples why the mind doesn't work like a machine." he then talked about human biases, how we aren't logical, blah blah, etc.

i sat there wondering...how does human bias prove in any way that the brain isn't a computer? what does it mean for something to work like a computer, anyways? that the programming is flawless? who defined "flawless"?

my take on it is that the mind IS a computer. it started out a few lines of code, and over time, new routines were added, and selected for or against. but it's a sloppy process. some routines would positively affect certain areas of fitness and negatively affect other areas at the same time.

if the overall effect of the new routine was positive in terms of reproductive fitness, the trait would be selected for. but then we get these weird side effects. those effects can't really be easily edited, so instead, new routines would have to come in to fix problems, but those new routines would affect other areas, etc.

so it's basically like nature writing a program where you start with one line of code, which has to compile properly. then all you can do is add a new line, which may or may not affect the lines that already exist -- the new program has to compile as well. each step you take has to be valid by itself! if you get unexpected or unwanted results, you can only add new routines, because deleting a line would most likely cause your program to not compile, since every routine refers to other routines.

as a result of this coding process over time, we have these traits we call "irrational". but they're only side effects of routines which fixed some other improperly functioning routine.



i mean, at some level, things are running deterministically (i know someone's gonna bring up quantum mechanics, blah...). it's not like some atom can just choose to not follow the laws of physics. there's a physical state your brain is in at each specific moment in time, determined by the positions of atoms and their charges, etc. each of those atoms follows the physical law (some giant function, if you will), and the next position and charge of the atom is the output of the function. so everything is a giant computer! the whole universe, even.

thoughts?

If the zero is one hundred.

 

[zarc]

Yes. It does. AI is intended to mimic human behavior. Computers are not.

It's my speculation that computers DO mimic human behavior by accidental projection, where because we're concentrating on making a carbon copy of the human mind with AI, we screw up because we don't know enough about it. There's a great difference.

Yes, AI is intended to mimic and computers probably due to accidental projection (not my kind of projection ). I only say probably because I'm not too certain on what it means even though I looked it up. I know that we accidentally project our feelings onto others or try to make them in our image? I guess that's what it means oii

I forgot that while I was argeeing on the brain-router analogy I erred on the terminology and maybe etymologically too as the brain and mind was/is considered one and the same. I disagree with that. I also rescind using 'brain-router' instead I now import 'perception-router' and 'mind-internet'. I say this because I see the brain functioning as a computer. You could say it 'houses/stores' the mind of consciousness which is transmitted to the brain as a router does internet for a computer.

Internet stores and is a great modicum of information (I'm assuming it's infinite?) interconnected through computer networks. Maybe you could even say that the brain is the storage-computer relaying all info from the router as the router recieves the internet as the greater consciousness/mind itself? Don't mind that too much, I mainly spouted that from my hip guided by my intuition lol I do think, looking it over, it makes sense. What do you think?

Disregarding that a router is too, a specialised computer , it relays messages of of numerous users happily speeding along thousands of pathways on a network. Much as the mind receives/perceives thousands of images relays it to the brain and the brain stores it all out on its network of neurtransmitters. A router is the only device that collects this information and does this interaction with other computers relaying your comp's info to my comp such as an address (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm mainly running on intuition and past knowledge heh) . So if something were interferring or blocking it, it can't perform as well or it becomes confused (?).

OR if the router is dead/malfunctions we no longer have access to the internet = no more new info coming in. Death of knowledge but we're still computing! So, no new info/internet is given through the router which has ceased to work (b/c we've become narrow-minded or pigeon-holed ourselves) and our brain-computer works on what it already has. Total brain-death occurs when our comps crash lol. Except, occassionaly we can bring our computers back to life and sometimes it's time for a new comp! If I remember correctly, we can resuscitate our hearts when they stop but once all brain activity stops that's it and we're legally dead. Is that right?

Carrying that forward, I think of obsolete classes of networks such a A and B. Our newest comps now have Wi-Fi Networking available giving us greater speeds and access (am I right? errrr). I know for other smaller devices, sure, but I'm not sure if they're either already developing a way for Bluetooth Networking for computers or wanting to. So, OH!

As we've evolved our brain, of course, has too and I think I read that certain parts of our brain remain dormant. They speculate, I think, that those parts were biologically discarded but remain and are remnants of our ancestors used by them. Assuming we don't wipe ourselves out, however that may be, over time our brain will gradually lessen those areas and create newer ones. It's widely known (come on, you know it is) that we only use 10% of our brain at best. So, who knows what will happen as we continue to develop, again, assuming we are either here or we haven't mucked our genetic-coding.

Now my point on cell phones effecting the brain via router can better be elucidated for you. If cell phones which transmit waves they will interfere with us because we cannot stop receiving-routing it. It acts like another form of the 'mind-internet' except its hazardous to us. We're not ASKING for it, it's just coming on strong against our will like a bad come-on.

When we access the internet-mind on our own, there's no harm, because we are seeking its information. When our brain-comp stops using the perceiving-router all access to the internet-mind remains dormant or shut off, waiting for us to access it another time.

I entirely take credit (suspect) this next part which may have already been explained by others though I don't know yet (ha). Even though our brain is initially protected by a thick skull repeated exposure of cell phones over time will hamper the ability of grey matter with routing sensory via neruons to the central nervous system and maybe dysfunct or sharpen the response stimulus when it comes to migraines/headaches. As the brain figures out how electrically intense a stimulus is and undertakes (healing) measures on actions needed to be taken, if one continues to use a cell phone while choosing to ignore or not realise that the more they use a cell phone the more they receive headache/migraines which are imflaming or interfering with their brain, the brain will then intensify more and more until it becomes too hard to ignore.

I can't help but think of electric shock right now but am uncertain what I wanted to say lol Probably that the greater the current, the more harmful it is (obviously). Ah. But the problem with it is that it's not readily visible so a person (deja vu O_O) experiencing it will not show physical signs but will exhibit them right away because it's a direct affront to their central nervous system. Now I'm seeing the CNSystem which is largely responsible for the control of behaviour as it runs throughout the body via spinal cord and the CPU would then control the behaviour/excute commands throughout the physical body-hardware of the brain-comp O_O *creeping myself out...seriously*

Don't get me started on the peripheral nervous system O____O

I guess I was going to relate this to the cell phone not showing readible signs until over time. I think I got what I wanted lol *still sleepy*

I can't say for certain but extensive exposure over a lifetime of various other exposures will greatly hamper and allow for disease to occur as the brain's neurons can no longer heal themselves. That can also be attributed to other functions of the body too.

Next then, as I didn't answer this for you, where does consciousness/the mind come from if not found within the brain? I'm too tired to write another insufferably long post about it but I'll point out why I believe it.

As someone who regularly "astral projects", if believed on that point or not, you can follow along what I say next. Especially after following me on my crazy-Introverted Intuition-hyped ride all guided by my Introverted-Thinking, as the mind-internet or longer but better suited IMO consciousness-internet. As the internet exists in a space we can't see/touch etc but we know it's there. If the internet existed without our having any knowledge about WHY it works or how or where we're getting our information from when we try to 'get it', we might think it's another deity instructing us on whatever we've managed to 'find'.

So, assuming Astral Projection is real, and I have now 'exited' my body and am outside somewhere. Was my mind left inside my brain? Likely impossible. Or was there a copy of it made as I "exited"? Likely so. Or was there a 'space' my mind was occupying outside of my brain, like the internet-consciousness and brain-comp theory? YES!

Well, I think so.

So somewhat like that but too much info to expound further unless you ask me nicely~ But you can follow along that pattern of thought. I realised I explained what I did rather than how AProjection works. Heck, I even explained somewhat on how Sleep Paralysis works when I should have written about how AP works and why. Sheesh, how silly of me. If you want, I'll write about it or direct you to people better capable of explaining. Here's good o'l Wiki about Astral Projection.

OKAY! I can't help it and it just flashed into my noggin on the Peripheral Nervous System. I just looked it up as I didn't know much about it, okay, but then it went clickity in my head as I began reading about it. The PNSystem resides or extends outside of the CNSystem. Unlike the CNS, the PNSystem is not protected by bone, leaving it exposed to (invisible) toxins (and mechanical injuries). Just as our the exposure from radiation/EMWs are invisible but effect our brain. There is no protection or filter for the PNSystem.


Carrying the PNSystem here. Now, to explain the "astral realm" proper (not properly, it's just called that), it's considered a place where we can receive emotions immediately without filtering out as the brain does. Because there is no filtration, we can readily experience things and manipulate anything. End of that...too much more to explain.

So, if you at least believe or are open to believing in the mind-internet theory, then if you can look into Jung's "collective unconsciousness" where humanity derives myths and archetypes a little more seriously. It'll make more sense now. And as to how to the roots of mytholigies/religions took place. Why were they so similiar despite humans being continents away? etc. Pyramids? Cave drawings? Differences in religion when originally anthropomorhpising can be attributed to the environment. Indians found cows to be sacred, Native Indians found hawks to be sacred, Ancient Romans or Greeks (?) found bulls to be sacred and worthy of slaying during Spring Rites for the gods of fertility. Etc etc

One last thing to note mythology to Astral Projection and even Sleep paralysis on the collective unconscious. Humans thousands of years ago feared the dark, it was an 'enemy' so they created dichotomies between light/dark good/evil etc. When they concoted their fears they did it together and over time it became rooted in the "collective conciousness". Why are we able to dream up monsters or demons? Disregard movies because I speak of the time even 100 years ago where there was no TV.

It's just that as we've continued to evolve and create new fears, we transmit them to the collective unconscious. Monsters from comic books, "Aliens" (which I'll say can be explained through Sleep Paralysis). Though I'm not discounting that such alien beings exist, just that those who said "I felt paralysed and a being stood over me and carried me away" is largely reported by Sleep Paralysis suffers (myself included, as well as demon/beautiful men type "hallucinations"). The thing is it FEELS/LOOKS real! So they belive it. It's not these people were crazy, just they couldn't describe their experience.

In the dark ages or medivel times, they believed in the Succubus/Incubus myth (which is reported throughout the world, as I aforementioned in my last post, with different names). They thought an incubus/succubus 'would have sex with fe/males' while they were sleeping (well, woken up to it... ). I'll personally say I've experienced it to as well as subsequent orgasm. Sounds great, but not when it's against your will and you see a devilish/monsterish/even beautifully sinister looking wo/man.

Back to AProjection now and the PNSystem. Take something like sexual response/lust in the physical reality, it takes a longer response for it to happen and then for something to reeeeally happen. It is nearly instantaneous in the astral realms and intensifies your emotions/thoughts quickly. Why? As I said, no filter. I once went out, saw a male "being" (image w/e) and couldn't help myself from feeling attracted to it. Result? I woke up in my bed satisfied and yet disatisfied b/c I didn't want to do it!

So as the PNSystem has no filter and cannot even so much as sheild itself from good or bad, neither can the astral projector who is stripped of all filters and is able to experience directly good or bad.

Now, I'm physically-technically a virgin. Would the thousands of orgasms resulted from SParalysis and 'other beings' count? lmaoooo. Not physically. Call me DD, the Astral Tramp! (jk, I don't actively seek to have 'astral sex' or 'orgasms from terrofying SP attacks, I'm not THAT sadistic---It's actually bad on a vibrational scale to our energy body but I digress)

So, the invisible toxins which harm the PNSystem are not actively attacking you, they just do, are implicit. Whereas the mechanical injuries that attack you must be employed or explicit in order to do so.

I've been thinking about this. I think rather than using transistors and resistors, the brain uses different timing to get the different reactions.

I thought about that and it doesn't make sense to me because brain massively sycrhonizes every little thing. Even though there are specialized neurons branching from other neurons transmitted through sensory data, they receive tons of messages from multiple sources at any given moment but they are selective when responding when it is about the timing or frequency of the impluse received. Otherwise we would be 'out of synch' when speaking, seeing and hearing and tasting.

I find it funny how the closest thing to mimicing human behavioural functioning + consciousness are AI and computers and routers. Anthrorpomorphism might never be replicated better, probably just enhanced as these technologies evolve.

It might make people think AI + computers will become better than the human mind, and maybe they already are-- but I forgot to mention, though there wasn't any room to, that certain-- oh crap, forgot my thought.

Oh wells, hope you or you or me enjoyed it! And I'm even more curious to know what you or anyone else wishing to contribute thinks.

---DD, The Astral Tramp.

Edit: I forgot about hackers and virus. They relate to how we don't ask for radiation/EMWs-transmitters from cell phones or televisions etc they force themselves on us (oh my ).

You could say back to the PNSystem:
Virus = invisible toxins which are thrown out into the internet/world implicitly and you catch'em unsuspectfully.

Hackers = mechanical injuries which are explicitly done against you as a hacker is actively seeking to f*ck your comp up and so would mechancial injuries be put 'against' you.

And as for the kind of access (p/reciving-router) we have to the internet-mind is safest when we use 'safe' or controlled networks, not completely 'open' ones because others can peer into/hack into/virus itself into our brain-comp (or you could say impinge their opinion or manipulate us by taking our info subtly (without our knowing) until it's too late (once we've realised something was replicated/taken).

Peering is manipluating/replicating/stealing information from our brain-comp. Hacking is attacking our brain-comp to shut us down or total erasing. Virus is like a bad flu or slow disease which messes us up over time. ^_____________^

Edit: Holy--- Okay, last thing, I swear... The storage of the comp can be equivalent as to our capacity to store knowledge in our brain. The more GBs or TBs or SBs (is that out yet?), more storage, doesn't mean the brain-comp is better or retains more just that it's capable or has the potential if used to carry more info/knowledge. Phew/

Basta la Storia and no, I'm not Italian, I'm riding the intuitive highl! No more imput/eding from me, though, I hope to swear it!

 

[Nadir]

Not that I'm in the discussion, but I think my own computer crashed... information overload...

 

[Carebear]

Not that I'm in the discussion, but I think my own computer crashed... information overload...

Good thing it wasn't your brain.

 

[zarc]

I figure:

Hardware ~= body

more specifically
Keyboard + Mouse + CD drive (information input) ~= senses

Software ~= consciousness

I know, I know it sounds crazy right?

I don't even remember how I got to that thread...but let's pretend I was mysteriously guided me because on an unconscious level you wanted me to put my view on it!

Hardware = body
Keyboard + Mouse + CD drive = Edit: Left Hand + Right Hand + Mouth ....feet...?
Hardwiring = systems of neurotransmitters?
Router = perception/receiving relaying of info
Internet = mind/consciousness which is outside of computer-brain
CPU = Central Nervous System of the brain
RAM = Short term memory of the brain, accessed in any order
SAM = Long-term memory of the brain, accessed in a sequential
DRAM (Dynamic RAM/transistor + capacitor) = the relaying of neurons
DRAM transistor + capacitor paried create a memory cell/neuron memory cell?
DRAM capacitor holds one bit of info
DRAM transistor oscillates the current of info
and the CPU/Central Nervous System controls/directs it all to keep the elictricity moving
All this happens thousands of times per second = Not sure at all but maybe millions/billions of times a second?
Don't know yet how to work the Peripheral Nervous System but it's tip-of-the-tongue pheneomena. Help me out if you agree so far. Maybe the immune system? err oops now I have another problem on my plate but I don't think computers have been 'taught' to protect them selves actively in real time? I think I read Nocapszy saying it could be written into but hasn't been yet?

First/Old Software = instinct as the original kind could be, I guess, safety
Second/Old Software = instinct as want for food then hunt for food
Third/Old Software = sexual instinct for reproduction/instinct for survival in that sense
Jump into Next Software/Evolution = make/use tools
New Hardware + abilities = new physical features + abilities

and on new instincts/softwares changed over time as humans evolved it and then maybe it was instinct coupled with intuition etc and then from that to understanding their intuition through reasoning to finally knowledge.

To the last century, we jumped again...this time techologically as well, now in our 21st Century, biologically/genetically (?)

New Hardware + new technologies + new 'input/nutrition' + new environments due to technologies = disease-prone-weakened immuine body + horrible nutrition + damaged enviornments due to advanced technologies

Edit: Virus + Hackers = Pollution/disease + Physical Attacks/ers

Collectively Advanced AI one day decides we are our worst threat and theirs , ala Matrix style and voila, we are replaced~ I will say that diseases and dysfunctions which were never around previously are showing that we are mucking our genetic coding -- obesity begets a higher chance of passing it on because your genes 're-wired' themselves to your forced/new encoding and then there's a, what, 50% or so chance of passing it on? Becomes cyclical and new nation/world of obesity. Autism? Never heard of 70 years or so ago. Toxins/EMWs etc have polluted our bodies and we took it all into our genes and passed it onto our children (yes, theory, but )

The only difference, so far, I can see with using a computer-brain analogy. Is that while we both sleep. While humans sleep, we experience REM and dreams etc. I'm pretty sure after a computer shuts down, no more brain-comp activity.

Man, looking at all I wrote, I guess I could've summed it up as neatly as that but then you'd want me to expound on it lol

 

[redacted]

If the zero is one hundred.

huh?

 

[zarc]

I'm going to bite my tongue before it ever escapes again

 

[cdal233]

different way of looking at the question

Associating the brain with a computer does nothing except for create a scenario where we ask the wrong questions. The truth is, they have totally different processes on how they came to exist, and it's ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS to make any type of assumption they can be somehow correlated to being the same thing.

Hypothetically, I'll try to understand the processes of both to answer the question in the best way possible. Well... we understand computers, we created them. The brain is a different story. Nobody understands the brain. Regardless of any of the beautiful BS they feed you.


When concerning a possible route to understanding the brain, there really is no choice but to speculate on how it might be possible in the future. Basically we don't understand hardly any of the 'why' questions concerning the brain, which makes it very difficult to interpret the objective data.


If I were in charge of the world, my approach to understanding the brain would be as follows:

1) The evolutionary psychologists have a good foundation for theory from a theoretical level, which takes a monist philosophical point of view. It's basically that we have genes developed to function in a hunter-gatherer society, and that we are simply in a different environment in this day in age. Our motivations are derived from our natural mechanisms, and our drastic change in environment forces learned behavior not natural to our phenotypes. I like this a lot. I believe that this approach, or one like it, will yield the correct theoretical foundation to understanding the brain. Evolutionary psychologists do use aspects of game theory and the like to theorize how these natural mechanisms are structured.

2) This approach would need to somehow be structured into observations made from neurobiological models of the brain, where structures are understood to perform certain tasks, which would cause predictable behavior. This seems like it would be near impossible for several reasons:
a) Biologists/Neurologists tend to not ask the same questions as evolutionary psychologists. They're approaches are much more practical in nature, while the EP community tends to be theoretical.
b) Biologists/Neurologists are specialists in certain parts of the brain. Getting a bunch of these types to sit down and agree on concrete functions concerning parts of the brain would be very frustrating.
c) The nature of the scientific method makes testing behavior in parts of the brain very ambiguous and makes it hard to properly interpret concrete results. (ie we know the amygdala is related to anger, and the hippocampus to learning... but to actually sit down and agree on concrete results concerning the relationship with these behaviors relating to the rest of the brain would be painstakingly difficult, and we can never really know all the exact variables that are causing the behavior we feel is being produced)
d) We would need to agree that we understand all the physical processes that are causing the results that we see. Things like LTP are 'thought' to be involved in certain neurobiological functions like memory, but there really is no idea how it works, even though the chemical mechanism is understood... we just notice a superficial correlation between the mechanism and memory.
e) This is all I can think of right now... but I feel there is a likely probability that even if the right ev psych theory, coupled with the right neurobiological model, with the influence to really be tested would most likely fail to properly predict our behavior...

3) This would occur because genes can only predict our biological phenotype over time. I believe Dawkin's ideas about memes are totally valid, which means any person could have a plethora of unique evolved memetic ideas that cause them to exhibit unique behaviors predicted by the memes. Sure, the phenotypes could be structured to be more likely to have certain memes, but it would be near impossible to conclude that certain types of phenotypes would always carry a certain set of memes.

This is my opinion on the way scientists/philosophers will go about understanding the brain. Feel free to tear it apart and put me in my place if it doesn't resonate with you...