OK, now all we need
-
That was the problem with the UK's former 11+ exam. If you passed you got to go to a better class of school - a Grammar School, but those who failed got to go to a Secondary Modern. Secondary Modern was for failures and thus many of these pupils were marked as such - failures - and to tell a child of 11 they were failures was considered an abuse of sorts. Thus, this system was abolished during the 1970's in favour for Comprehensive Education where all pupils were taught at the same pace irrespective how the individual pupil performed. This Comprehensive Education was not beneficial to all as those that were either "bright" or "dumb (for want of a better word)" as their needs were not necessarily serviced. But... Today, there is some discrimination insofar that ability by subject dictates would level of schooling you receive - that means if you are a wizard with, say, mathematics, you would be placed into a classroom together with similar pupils who have the potential to do well but if your mathematics was not at that standard you would be taught but not at the same degree of excellence. Also, there is an identification of those who might be classed as "gifted" and suitable education packages for those are under way or under review. Personally, I do not like the label "gifted" as it does signify some degree of "special measures" that could result in some kind of resentment from other pupils which can, and does, lead to some degree of bullying.
Back when I was 11, I was tracked into a high performance group because I had extremely high scores on aptitude and IQ tests - and had done well in grammar school except when I was too bored. By highschool I was nicknamed "The Professor and was taking college level courses.) When I was 13, I tried out for Little League along with my best friend. I didn't get it in - even though my best friend's dad was a coach! :(( So I was told I was a success in areas where I could succeed and a failure in areas where I would fail. When I went to my highschool 25th year reunion - I was greeted by the nerds and the jocks didn't have any idea who I was. Kids today can't fail in too many schools - unless of course, they act out because they're bored beyond belief either because the work is too hard for them to try, or the work is too easy. Sure it hurts their feeling when they are told that they failed. But it gives meaning to the times when they are told they are successes. Schools and parents should do their damnedest to make sure every kid fulfills his total potential - whether that is as a counterjockey at McDonalds, or an auto repair guy, or an actress, or a Marine, or a nuclear physicist. When we don't do that, we are failing our kids. When we give them ersatz awards and meaningless diplomas based on time-served, we are screwing them over, and ourselves, and our civilization.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
But oversimplification ruins everything. Simplest is good, but simplest-er is horrible.
Well, fine. But please explain why the phenomenon of consciousness cannot be considered as, say, simply being aware of an apple. Why is that 'simplest-er'? Wouldn't consciousness of an apple be the same as consciousness of anything else?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Because the body is well set-up to use electrical impulses, owing to sodium and potassium ions generating voltage. It's worth pointing out that it's not ONLY electricity that carries action potentials: between neurons in the chemical synapse, to carry the impulse from one cell to another a chemical neurotransmitter is generated from the axon of the first neuron and binds to receptors in the second.
All of which represent well known energy exchanging reactions fundamentally no different than countless others one could mention. At what clearly descernable point in the process is a unit of consciousness generated?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, fine. But please explain why the phenomenon of consciousness cannot be considered as, say, simply being aware of an apple. Why is that 'simplest-er'? Wouldn't consciousness of an apple be the same as consciousness of anything else?
We're not arguing the definition of 'consciousness', we're arguing the definition of 'mind'. Consciousness arises from the mind, but the mind encompasses unconscious and subconscious processes.
Stan Shannon wrote:
All of which represent well known energy exchanging reactions fundamentally no different than countless others one could mention. At what clearly descernable point in the process is a unit of consciousness generated?
I would have to understand the mind better to say for certain.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
That's not what happened at all. He reasoned that the force that causes an apple to fall is the same that keeps the moon and other bodies in orbit.
Which is an exaple of reducing a complex system to a simple one.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Hardly 'screwy', and hardly the issue. Einstein didn't use faulty analogies to support his theory, he used the null result from the Michelson-Morley experiment and a whole lot of physics and mathematics.
Actually, Einstein's initial insights came while riding on a bus observing a clock tower he was moving away from and the famous thought experiment of riding on a beam of light. Those are certainly examples of screwy thinking that lead to great discoveries.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Which is an exaple of reducing a complex system to a simple one.
What are you arguing here? Although their inspiration came from somewhere fantastical, their work is complicated and rigorously physical and mathematical. You cannot debate based on a wrong interpretation.
-
Relying on charity is demeaning but welfare isn't? If charity is saving your life do you really consider it to be demeaning? Actually - if you want to live off of my tax dollars without contributing I would prefer it to be as demeaning as possible. Hopefully that will provide you with some motivation to change your situation for the better. I live in a country with universal health care - if you call living in a small town with no family physicians universal. The system is great if you can get into it. But the difficulty in getting through the gate has become greater and greater as time goes on. The availability of medical professionals is declining because a lot of people are viewing it as a not-so-well paying civil service job. If healthcare is a right who do we force to provide it when nobody wants to do it?
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
DRHuff wrote:
if you want to live off of my tax dollars without contributing I would prefer it to be as demeaning as possible.
What makes you think that they aren't contributing? It would appear to me that a poor person with a job a buck above minium wage is likely to be costing this country less with their dependence on social services than the million-dollar bonus babies who fucked up our economic system beyond belief. Lots of target for demeaning at Goldman Sachs.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Back when I was 11, I was tracked into a high performance group because I had extremely high scores on aptitude and IQ tests - and had done well in grammar school except when I was too bored. By highschool I was nicknamed "The Professor and was taking college level courses.) When I was 13, I tried out for Little League along with my best friend. I didn't get it in - even though my best friend's dad was a coach! :(( So I was told I was a success in areas where I could succeed and a failure in areas where I would fail. When I went to my highschool 25th year reunion - I was greeted by the nerds and the jocks didn't have any idea who I was. Kids today can't fail in too many schools - unless of course, they act out because they're bored beyond belief either because the work is too hard for them to try, or the work is too easy. Sure it hurts their feeling when they are told that they failed. But it gives meaning to the times when they are told they are successes. Schools and parents should do their damnedest to make sure every kid fulfills his total potential - whether that is as a counterjockey at McDonalds, or an auto repair guy, or an actress, or a Marine, or a nuclear physicist. When we don't do that, we are failing our kids. When we give them ersatz awards and meaningless diplomas based on time-served, we are screwing them over, and ourselves, and our civilization.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Little League - is that Baseball?
Oakman wrote:
So I was told I was a success in areas where I could succeed and a failure in areas where I would fail.
It is a good feeling when you get a positive, but awful when you get a negative. At the age of 11 in UK you sat the 11+ if you failed, your ENTIRE secondary education was substandard in comparison to Grammar Schooling. Then by being classed a universal failure at that age, other people's (authority figures/parents/siblings) views of your expectations at both that school and your future employment would be low. You were not expected to do great things. You were not expected to better yourself by doing college or university courses - remember - you have already been defined as a failure and that was what many remained as.
Oakman wrote:
highschool 25th year reunion
I would have difficulty remember the names of my classmates all these years later. Continue tomorrow ? It is very late (1.30am UK) so I'm retiring.
-
DRHuff wrote:
Relying on charity is demeaning but welfare isn't?
I don't see a fair education system as being part of welfare, nor do I see a health system that's accessible to all, as welfare. They are part of a fair society. Is insurance, welfare ?
DRHuff wrote:
if you want to live off of my tax dollars without contributing I would prefer it to be as demeaning as possible.
Yeah, because that's the way to integrate people into society - embarrass them.
DRHuff wrote:
But the difficulty in getting through the gate has become greater and greater as time goes on.
Where do you live ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
I don't see a fair education system as being part of welfare, nor do I see a health system that's accessible to all, as welfare. They are part of a fair society. Is insurance, welfare ?
I agree. And while I want to see a "fair" society I just don't trust government to be the delivery agent for fairness. Government is inefficient, incapable of solving problems (a solved problem no longer employs b'crats), open to gross corruption (backed by all of the coercive the power of the state), and led by people who are rarely experts in any field except for the pusuit of power (gotta trust those guys!). In a fair society what amount of your life should the government be allowed to legally coerce from you via taxes? In a fair society what expense is too great to save the life of a citizen? In a fair society what expense is too great to improve the life of a citizen? In a fair society what minimal level of contribution should be required from a person before they meet the obligations of citizenship? In a fair society what is a minimial acceptable standard of living? In a fair... And on it goes.
Christian Graus wrote:
Where do you live ?
Canada.
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I don't see a fair education system as being part of welfare, nor do I see a health system that's accessible to all, as welfare. They are part of a fair society. Is insurance, welfare ?
I agree. And while I want to see a "fair" society I just don't trust government to be the delivery agent for fairness. Government is inefficient, incapable of solving problems (a solved problem no longer employs b'crats), open to gross corruption (backed by all of the coercive the power of the state), and led by people who are rarely experts in any field except for the pusuit of power (gotta trust those guys!). In a fair society what amount of your life should the government be allowed to legally coerce from you via taxes? In a fair society what expense is too great to save the life of a citizen? In a fair society what expense is too great to improve the life of a citizen? In a fair society what minimal level of contribution should be required from a person before they meet the obligations of citizenship? In a fair society what is a minimial acceptable standard of living? In a fair... And on it goes.
Christian Graus wrote:
Where do you live ?
Canada.
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
DRHuff wrote:
I just don't trust government to be the delivery agent for fairness
Well, who do you propose as an alternative ?
DRHuff wrote:
In a fair society what amount of your life should the government be allowed to legally coerce from you via taxes?
Despite being in the 50% bracket, I end up paying about 20%. I think that's reasonable. I sure would not vote for a tax cut if it was paid for by cutting welfare.
DRHuff wrote:
In a fair society what expense is too great to save the life of a citizen? In a fair society what expense is too great to improve the life of a citizen?
These are stupid questions. I'm not talking about improving life, I am just talking about making it possible. I am not talking about providing any means possible for medical care to extend life, I am talking about a basis level of care that doesn't leave people unable to visit a doctor, or unable to afford the cost of a medical emergency such as a car accident or broken limb.
DRHuff wrote:
In a fair society what minimal level of contribution should be required from a person before they meet the obligations of citizenship?
Being born here or choose to be naturalised here. Once it gets higher than that, it is open to abuse.
DRHuff wrote:
In a fair society what is a minimial acceptable standard of living?
Well, I defined that. To be more precise, a roof, food, clothing ( can be second hand ) and some basic entertainment ( a TV, and a PC capable of internet access, for example ).
DRHuff wrote:
And on it goes.
No, you're just being silly. I don't see how you're making a logical point, unless it's that you have money and you're scared that a welfare system will take some of it from you.
DRHuff wrote:
Canada
OK, I thought as much.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
DRHuff wrote:
No - but they aren't exactly contributing to society either.
I am all for work for the dole programs and other ways to make sure that people who are on welfare, make some sort of contribution and keep themselves in the swing of having responsibilities and spending their time doing something productive.
DRHuff wrote:
Sweet - so who pays for the R&D costs of those drugs? Americans for the most part.
Actually, most Americans seem overly dismissive of medical research that takes place under systems that are tax subsidised, but a lot of stuff gets discovered outside the US. Either way, Americans pay for it most b/c they are a drug addicted society. Drugs get paid for here, the same as they do in the US. There's just an insurance system that helps make them affordable by covering the gap.
DRHuff wrote:
If the US adopts a similar universal health care system watch for a huge decrease in new pharmacutical research (both in the US and the rest of the world).
Well, actually, a lot of the research that goes on, isn't really new, it's slightly altering existing drugs in order to extend patents and keep prices high. I doubt there's more innovation in medicine in the USA than other parts of the world, if you take into account the ratios of population between countries.
DRHuff wrote:
Life ain't fair - why should society be
Because we're not animals ? Because we're capable of compassion ? How about, because if you don't provide a safety net, people will provide their own by robbing your house ?
DRHuff wrote:
We have to live through a few more years to see if the social experiments going on are sustainable across multiple generations and declining indigenous populations.
I think that most systems are broken right now. Ours sure is. We give money for life to a 12 yo girl who decides she'd rather have a baby than go to school. And no-one has to guts to tackle the problem. There's a whole range of safety nets in Australia, and I earn too much to qualify for any of them. I'd still rather see a system that gets abused sometimes, than a system that kicks people to the curb for not being successful, and calls them lazy, and lets them die.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of
Geez - I think I may be coming across as a little cold here. I am not arguing the existence of a social safety net as much as I am arguing about the degree of safety net that any society can afford. I worry that these wonderfully expensive programs will one day result in an overall financial calamity that gets replaced by who knows what. I would feel a little better about it if I had ever seen a bureacrat shut down a department because they had solved the problem that the department was created to deal with. Still waiting... Government grows - it is in its very nature to expand. Bigger governments in the name of a fair society will eventually lead to a state where society fails. Either that or we get the standard govt flat tax income tax form: How much did you earn? ________ Send it to us. :-D
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
-
Healthcare systems in Canada are different from those applied in the UK. It is true that if you live in an area that is sparsely populated the probability of you finding even basic GP services is low. But then, there are huge wide open stretches of territory in Canada where populations are sparse, so, it is understandable that such services will be restricted. Perhaps you have a visiting GP every month or so, it is not ideal at all. But if you live in a large community such as a larger town/city, then healthcare provision should not - will not be an issue. But if there is a need for a healthcare provision and that authorities can be persuaded to that point of view, then that point of view should be made as forcefully as possible. At the end of the day the healthcare authority needs to justify its expenditure and its existence. Of course, Australia has huge areas of sparsely populated areas, but they have a Flying Doctor service and don't often suffer snow and ice conditions. But our Aussie friends can comment of the kind of services applicable in such sparse areas. Yep, I fully understand the American concept of "if you want to live off of my tax dollars without contributing I would prefer it to be as demeaning as possible", so I'll not argue that.
Last modified: 8mins after originally posted --
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
But if you live in a large community such as a larger town/city, then healthcare provision should not - will not be an issue.
Actually it is becoming a huge problem. Finding a family doctor in Calgary (1 million) that is accepting new patients is increasingly difficult. The (incredibly inefficient and expensive) use of Emergency clinics for everday medicine is a result. Even worse is the dwindling number of obstetricians. The government paid the doctor who delivered my daughter at 1:00AM Saturday morning far less thatn what I would have had to pay a plumber to come out for an emergency repair at that time. Mostly this is a result of too much demand for too few tax dollars. And our baby boomers are just getting to the expensive age. (Canadas system is almost unique in our restriction of private medical care - well - unique if you don't count Cuba and North Korea!)
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
-
DRHuff wrote:
if you want to live off of my tax dollars without contributing I would prefer it to be as demeaning as possible.
What makes you think that they aren't contributing? It would appear to me that a poor person with a job a buck above minium wage is likely to be costing this country less with their dependence on social services than the million-dollar bonus babies who fucked up our economic system beyond belief. Lots of target for demeaning at Goldman Sachs.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Hey I never said that everybody who earns a paycheck is contributing. Bailing out the morons who brought us to our current state is the biggest and dumbest welfare program ever invented. And in the end it will probably hurt the poor the most.
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
-
Geez - I think I may be coming across as a little cold here. I am not arguing the existence of a social safety net as much as I am arguing about the degree of safety net that any society can afford. I worry that these wonderfully expensive programs will one day result in an overall financial calamity that gets replaced by who knows what. I would feel a little better about it if I had ever seen a bureacrat shut down a department because they had solved the problem that the department was created to deal with. Still waiting... Government grows - it is in its very nature to expand. Bigger governments in the name of a fair society will eventually lead to a state where society fails. Either that or we get the standard govt flat tax income tax form: How much did you earn? ________ Send it to us. :-D
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
*grin* well, then your concerns are the same as mine. I am all for people working for welfare, and for welfare to cut off ( for example, if we have a single mothers pension, it should be the same no matter how many kids you choose to have, if you get public housing and you abuse it, you should be banned from further public housing until you pay the damages, etc ).
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Hey I never said that everybody who earns a paycheck is contributing. Bailing out the morons who brought us to our current state is the biggest and dumbest welfare program ever invented. And in the end it will probably hurt the poor the most.
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
DRHuff wrote:
And in the end it will probably hurt the poor the most.
Well the two trillion dollars of wealth that has already been destroyed in this country has done a number on the middle class, that's for sure. If this keep going - and there's no sign it won't - a lot of the middle class, and some of the rich, are going to find out what it is like to be poor.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Little League - is that Baseball?
Oakman wrote:
So I was told I was a success in areas where I could succeed and a failure in areas where I would fail.
It is a good feeling when you get a positive, but awful when you get a negative. At the age of 11 in UK you sat the 11+ if you failed, your ENTIRE secondary education was substandard in comparison to Grammar Schooling. Then by being classed a universal failure at that age, other people's (authority figures/parents/siblings) views of your expectations at both that school and your future employment would be low. You were not expected to do great things. You were not expected to better yourself by doing college or university courses - remember - you have already been defined as a failure and that was what many remained as.
Oakman wrote:
highschool 25th year reunion
I would have difficulty remember the names of my classmates all these years later. Continue tomorrow ? It is very late (1.30am UK) so I'm retiring.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Little League - is that Baseball?
Yep - sorry, but I didn't want to be patronizing and explain if you did know what I meant.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
It is a good feeling when you get a positive, but awful when you get a negative
It doesn't have to be. Babies learn to walk by falling down. One of the lessons that life is teaching them is that repeated failure can presage success. Unfortunately, parents and teachers do their best to sabotage that lesson. What I wished would happen is that kids be taught, long before they get into school, that actions have consequences that are fair, and appropriate and that are related to the action. (Action does not mean misbehavior, and consequence is not punishment. It is just as important that kids experience rewards for positive behavior as negative reinforcement for negative behavior.) I learned an important lesson when I got ignored in the little league draft. One of which was don't count on knowing the coach to get a job, skills and talent are more important.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
You were not expected to do great things. You were not expected to better yourself by doing college or university courses - remember - you have already been defined as a failure and that was what many remained as
That's unfortunate. Had, somehow, the idea been to find out what each child was good at so they could succeed at that rather than fail at what they weren't, the educational system would have been doing its job. I wonder (as an ignorant foreigner) if this is a holdover from the old public/private school system England was saddled with for so long.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I would have difficulty remember the names of my classmates all these years later.
The only name I really wanted to remember was Marcia R*'s and I did, and she remembered mine, and it was a great evening. :)
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Continue tomorrow ?
ball is in your court. (that's tennis ;) )
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
he realised how complex the answer had to be to explain the apple falling down and the moon remaining in orbit
Sorry Jon, but Stan is right. Newton saw past the complexity of all the different situations. He really did come up with the simple explanation. It can be distilled down to a paragraph, yet still explain all gravitational effects, between all objects, within the framework of Newtonian physics. (Hence the name. :laugh: )
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
RichardM1 wrote:
Sorry Jon, but Stan is right. Newton saw past the complexity of all the different situations. He really did come up with the simple explanation. It can be distilled down to a paragraph, yet still explain all gravitational effects, between all objects, within the framework of Newtonian physics. (Hence the name. )
Realise that Stan's argument is actually refuted by this. Newton came up with a simple explanation for a complex phenomenon, but he was also wrong. Einstein's theory has a better agreement with reality, but it is also much more complex.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Sorry Jon, but Stan is right. Newton saw past the complexity of all the different situations. He really did come up with the simple explanation. It can be distilled down to a paragraph, yet still explain all gravitational effects, between all objects, within the framework of Newtonian physics. (Hence the name. )
Realise that Stan's argument is actually refuted by this. Newton came up with a simple explanation for a complex phenomenon, but he was also wrong. Einstein's theory has a better agreement with reality, but it is also much more complex.
Newton was absolutely correct within a Newtonian framework. ( :rolleyes: See definition of Newtonian Physics) Einstein was wrong in general relativity: Take the cosmological constant, you can try and decide if it was wrong when he put it in,or when he pulled it out.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
Newton was absolutely correct within a Newtonian framework. ( :rolleyes: See definition of Newtonian Physics) Einstein was wrong in general relativity: Take the cosmological constant, you can try and decide if it was wrong when he put it in,or when he pulled it out.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
RichardM1 wrote:
Newton was absolutely correct within a Newtonian framework. ( Roll eyes See definition of Newtonian Physics)
That's like saying he was absolutely correct in a fantasy world framework. His theories and equations were found to be approximations for more complex ones. They're very useful, and widely used, but they're not correct.
RichardM1 wrote:
Take the cosmological constant, you can try and decide if it was wrong when he put it in,or when he pulled it out.
He was wrong to put it in, not because the phenomenon doesn't exist (I've heard there's a way that such an effect could arise) but because it was based on personal conviction rather than actual science.
-
Based on the explanations in the site you pointed to, this does not pass a simple sniff test. If the skull were as good a Faraday cage as is claimed by the writer, cell phone radiation would not penetrate. I do agree that radio waves that are on order of the frequency with brain waves would have not effect on the brain waves. Brain waves are all grouped in frequencies less than 18 Hz, and the brain is not an effective antenna for waves with 10,000 mile wave lengths. EM radiation that had a frequency well matched to the head would be in the gigahertz range (300,000,000 m/s / head size < .33 m). To have internal structure in the field that would hold the information of the mind, the frequency would have to be much higher. Assume the mind can be represented by a gigabit, in the form of active memories, thought and mind 'process'. Assume a BIG headed, blockhead of a kid, with head that is 1/3 meter on each side, so would hold that data in a cube, 1000 bits on a side. Since the .3m is the size of GHz waves, it would require terahertz freq waves to fit the data. But our brains do not emit in the THz range. The brain waves are EMF manifestations of chemical processes that resonate in the < 18 Hz range. The EMF energy generated by these is minuscule, and the interaction they would have with EMF waves is minuscule. There are no standing THz EMF wave in our heads. Physics says this theory is total BS.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
Faraday cages are most effective in blocking static electric fields. So high-frequency cell phone radiation will indeed penetrate and be attenuated according to the skin depth. I don't think the article suggests that the brain acts as an antenna, so I'm not sure why you bother with the frequency matching argument. And besides, you are assuming that the information is completely contained in the E/M field of the mind. The article does not suggest that. Physics only says the theory is BS under your assumption. If all the information relating to consciousness were contained in the EM field, then you can imagine that if every neuron action potential induced a disturbance of the brain's EM field, that information flow would be proportional to the spike rate of neurons - about 1012 bits per second. However, I think current estimates based on functional MRI show that the actual rate is closer to 40 bits per sec. So only a tiny component of the EM field corresponds to the experience of consciousness. IF anything, the EM field probably induces small transmembrane neuron voltages so that neurons will only be sensitive to changes in the EM field if they are within some finite range of the firing potential. I don't think it's a complete theory, but I don't think it's BS, either.
-
Faraday cages are most effective in blocking static electric fields. So high-frequency cell phone radiation will indeed penetrate and be attenuated according to the skin depth. I don't think the article suggests that the brain acts as an antenna, so I'm not sure why you bother with the frequency matching argument. And besides, you are assuming that the information is completely contained in the E/M field of the mind. The article does not suggest that. Physics only says the theory is BS under your assumption. If all the information relating to consciousness were contained in the EM field, then you can imagine that if every neuron action potential induced a disturbance of the brain's EM field, that information flow would be proportional to the spike rate of neurons - about 1012 bits per second. However, I think current estimates based on functional MRI show that the actual rate is closer to 40 bits per sec. So only a tiny component of the EM field corresponds to the experience of consciousness. IF anything, the EM field probably induces small transmembrane neuron voltages so that neurons will only be sensitive to changes in the EM field if they are within some finite range of the firing potential. I don't think it's a complete theory, but I don't think it's BS, either.
73Zeppelin wrote:
If all the information relating to consciousness were contained in the EM field, then you can imagine that if every neuron action potential induced a disturbance of the brain's EM field, that information flow would be proportional to the spike rate of neurons - about 1012 bits per second. However, I think current estimates based on functional MRI show that the actual rate is closer to 40 bits per sec. So only a tiny component of the EM field corresponds to the experience of consciousness. IF anything, the EM field probably induces small transmembrane neuron voltages so that neurons will only be sensitive to changes in the EM field if they are within some finite range of the firing potential.
But now are we saying that infornation itself is the source of consciousness? Its not the field or the circuitry, its the information they contain? I find all of that to be complete rubish. Either there is a precise, descernable, measurable physical mechanism (a materialistic cause) behind the phenomenon of consciousness or there is not. It isn't a matter of bits per second, it can't be.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
If all the information relating to consciousness were contained in the EM field, then you can imagine that if every neuron action potential induced a disturbance of the brain's EM field, that information flow would be proportional to the spike rate of neurons - about 1012 bits per second. However, I think current estimates based on functional MRI show that the actual rate is closer to 40 bits per sec. So only a tiny component of the EM field corresponds to the experience of consciousness. IF anything, the EM field probably induces small transmembrane neuron voltages so that neurons will only be sensitive to changes in the EM field if they are within some finite range of the firing potential.
But now are we saying that infornation itself is the source of consciousness? Its not the field or the circuitry, its the information they contain? I find all of that to be complete rubish. Either there is a precise, descernable, measurable physical mechanism (a materialistic cause) behind the phenomenon of consciousness or there is not. It isn't a matter of bits per second, it can't be.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
it can't be.
That's what the church said about the heliocentric system. Anyways, I understand what you're trying to say. Unfortunately for you, you make those statements with absolutely no supporting evidence. And you're taking the argument too far - all it's saying is that this is one possible component of the experience of consciousness. It's not saying that this is 100% the conscious experience. It's logical, makes sense, supports observation and doesn't appeal to the supernatural. Hence, it's worth further study. In order to explain consciousness, we must first be able to figure out what it is we need to observe and/or measure.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
It would seem to me that any natural phenomenon would be reducible to, and best understood at, some basic, least complex, state.
Of course it does.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Of course it does.
He's obviously never looked too closely at the respiratory system before.