In our last article, we examined the brain and found that we could not locate memory, processing and data transfer. We could see the delivery of chemicals and charged particles to specific neurons, but nothing else. Today, we are going to talk about that delivery network and what exactly is happening in the electrochemical exchanges.
If you go back to May of last year, I wrote an article in relation to Plasma and the Binding Problem. It was here that we first broke the receiver mechanism within the neuron that accepts RF energy. This has since been isolated to the axon hillock. In this article, I speculated that the EM exchanges and some form of spatial encoding scheme may allow for a type of processing. Whilst a functional theory in other regards, this proved to be unworkable in a human context. There were too many stumbling blocks, from noise, to ever shifting relative positions of cells.
This issue of noise was something we kept coming back to. How can noise be suppressed and why aren’t we subject to a wide range of interference? The answer was staring us in the face; we had already shown that action potentials were not a means of communication. They had to be something else.
We looked at these actions potentials and attempted to quantify what was actually happening. We saw that when the potential difference at the axon hillock got above a certain point, an action potential was triggered. The action potential was the exchange of ions across a membrane that changed the potential of the cell. It was similar to processes like osmosis, which changes relative pressures and that is when it hit us. The common factor here was thermodynamics. The action potential was a way of dissipating energy stored in the electrical field as both radiation and kinetic motion.
In short, it was an exhaust.
To make more sense of this, consider that as we propagate down a network the voltage across the membrane is a product of the charges. To prevent a build-up of voltage, the charge distribution must be regulated in some fashion. As a real world example, imagine we had a two lane highway, feeding into a single lane. The traffic density in the single lane would be twice that of the lanes in the two lane highway. Thus, to maintain the same density of traffic, we need to remove at least 50% of the traffic before feeding it into the single lane. If these charges were allowed to accumulate at any neuron, we would have significant build-up of voltage and the cell membrane would begin to breakdown.
We needed to understand more about synaptic selection to understand if this energy conversion process has anything to do with route selection. The fact that neurons are sensitive to RF interference suggests that it does, although we needed to pin down the exact mechanism. The current reasoning is that a potential exists after the main action potential; this potential triggers an electromechanical mechanism to restore the resting potential of the cell. This happens in the form of neurotransmitter release at the synapses. To provide a control on this, it has been suggested that some form of electrical latch exists that prevents neurotransmitter release until the potential has risen to a given point and then dropped. This would be a different threshold to the action potential.
The interesting part is that the action potential does not vary as a function of the input. That is, it always removes a fixed amount of energy from the input. We can see how this is a process of reverse power amplification and the density of the E-field is the controlling factor in mechanical route selection.
This means that the body does not make use of electrical signals, just electrical switches.
This brought us back to the issue of data, or the lack of it. The neuron is nothing special. It is just an electromechanical switch that bleeds off any build-up in the electrical field and drives mechanical processes which release chemicals.
The neuron does not send or receive data; it sends and receives chemicals and charges. The neuron does not process data, it only drives a mechanical processes. The neuron does not store data as it receives none.
If all we are observing is the motion of particles to particular areas, then this tends to reinforce the premise we arrived at in the first article. Processing, memory and data are not functions of the brain itself, but something physical that the cells in the brain are sending/receiving particles to/from. Thus, we need to examine these cells and trace the flow of particles. If, as suspected, this traverses down into the quantum level, we will be left with the issue of how we follow this chain of communication with current technology.
There may also be the added complication that this lower layer is the product of localised symmetry breaking. That is, outside the context of the cell itself, it may not be possible to reproduce. The notion here is that specific particles are created depending on the nature of the interaction, rather than being fundamentally present at all times. That said, this would be a radical notion in the world in physics but we must not discount the possibility during investigation.
This opened our eyes to a stark realisation. The ever increasing sources of electromagnetic radiation in our environment are causing false route selections within the human brain. Like a form of signal jamming, it would lead to problems with concentration, attention, memory, learning, reasoning and behaviour.
Such interactions lead to structural changes in the brain to cope with background noise, the energy needs to be dissipated in some manner. Given the complex interplay and the rapid integration of such adaptions, the full implications of the changes are as yet unknown.
What is clear is that the long term effects would be very similar to that of narcotics and the full range of mental health issues associated with long term narcotics use would be present in the wider population.
Thus, we must begin a gradual withdrawal of all forms of wide area broadcasts and begin a process of shielding all forms of electrical interference.
We may also need to prepare for an even more drastic solution. Electromagnetics of non-natural sources may dangerous to us from an evolutionary stand-point. In fact, it would appear that the subtle electromagnetic interactions that occur between life-forms over eons cause modifications to all biological processes. Mutual beneficial adaptation appears to be driven by this mechanism, although the specific mechanics are unclear. What is clear is that for species to adapt to each other, some form of exchange of physical carriers must occur. These adaptations are not copies of code segments, but corresponding changes that allow different species to interact. For example, a species develops a long nose to feed from inside a deep flower. This process requires changes to the DNA, thus controlled errors need to be introduced over extended periods and that could be as low as a single mutation every 10- 1000 years.
We could be oblivious to an extinction level event unfolding at this very minute that we have instigated through our wide spread use of electromagnetics. Biological systems have evolutionary mechanisms to cope with natural sources of electromagnetics, however, the current saturation levels and rate of change would be beyond what biological systems can cope with. Thus, over time, biological systems will become out of sync with each other and fail to be biologically compatible. This would lead to a catastrophic breakdown of natural cycles which humans depend on to survive.
What we could be seeing here is the first tangible evidence supporting theories such as Gaia hypothesis. This analysis tends to suggest that we cannot even treat the planet in isolation as electromagnetics extends right into deep space. These effects are subtle, but every natural aspect cascades into a summation that affects the final outcome. For more information on this, please refer to Chaos Theory:
Delving deeper into the mechanics is revealing the problem in a very clear way. The natural tendency is to feel that such things are absurd and that we must be the brain. The problem is that the facts do not support that position and we have enough knowledge and technology to confirm that.
The most scientific approach now would be to list every cell type in the human brain and look at its mechanics. We should be able to quickly rule out every type relatively quickly, especially since there is no data.