OK, now all we need
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
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.
I agree completely, except for the logical and makes sense part. I am all for continued efforts to find a purely mechanistic explanation for consciousness just as with any other natural phenomenon. But it cannot be this 'bits per second' bullshit. Thats a copout, and scores a point for the other side. I want an explaination which would allow me, given sufficient resources, to confidently reproduce the condition in, say, my IPod. If you cannot do that, than, dude, the shit is supernatural.
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:
But it cannot be this 'bits per second' bullsh*t. Thats a copout, and scores a point for the other side.
No, science finds quantities easier to deal with than qualities. Quantities are measurable. Bits per second is a convenient way of describing observations. That's all. It's purely descriptive.
-
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. I realize you are just a kid, but even you should be able to appreciated the significance of that statement. It is relating the conscious state to bit rates. Well, where is the consciousness? Is it in the bits? In the field? In the Ions? Where is it? What physical parameters represent a single basic unit of consciousness?
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.
I don't understand the problem, Stan. Consciousness can result in information transfer measured in bits per second. It doesn't mean that bits per second defines consciousness. It's an observation/prediction. We should observe information transfer in a conscious experience. That information transfer can be measured. It doesn't necessarily mean that information transfer is consciousness, but is one aspect of it. Using wave particle duality as an analogy, the electron is neither wave nor particle, but both. It is my suspicion that consciousness shares some form of similar characteristic.
-
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. I realize you are just a kid, but even you should be able to appreciated the significance of that statement. It is relating the conscious state to bit rates. Well, where is the consciousness? Is it in the bits? In the field? In the Ions? Where is it? What physical parameters represent a single basic unit of consciousness?
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, did you read any of the references I gave yesterday ? If not, look at the 3rd reference. If you did look at the 3rd reference again. From that 3rd reference I quote "The topic largely remains a focus of philosophical discussion and speculation. At best there are suggestive findings, with nothing so definitive as to have garnered general agreement on how to measure consciousness, how many types there are, and how it is constituted within the brain...In our estimation, affective consciousness, perhaps the most ancient variant (think of pure pain), arises from the capacity of our brain to experience the biological values of the body – organismic conditions that can unconditionally enhance or detract from survival. Cognitive consciousness – the ability to discriminate multifarious differences in the world – seems not to be foundational in the capacity of the brain to have raw affective experiences." What they are saying, was essentially, we have some theories, some ideas but we don't yet actually know. BUT, investigations and research are on-going. BUT to properly investigate and research we need to devise the correct tool or tools, alas the problem at the moment is, that we don't know what these tool or tools look like. To some extent we are fumbling around in the dark trying to find an elusive light-switch, but given sufficient time (and money) that light-switch may probably be found. But, by the same token, that light-switch might lead you to discover you then need something else so the story could well remain incomplete.
-
Equally it can be troublesome to find a GP with vacancies in your locality within the UK, but the solution to that problem is that you can contact your local NHS Family Practitioner Committee who is mandated to instruct a GP to take you onto their books. So this aspect of medical care in UK is well served. However, cannot say same for UK NHS Dental Services. The overwhelming majority are private and do not do NHS work so that is problematic for many peoples.
Wow. I can just imagine what it is like to have a doctor who was focred to take you on as a patient. How many patients can a doctor be forced to take on? As for finding GP's in your locality. The problem in far more widespread in Canada with most communities short of GPs and most GPs having more patients than they can reasonably cover. In Canada dental is not covered by government programs. Most companies offer coverage as a benefit. If you have no insurance and pay cash some dentists give you a break (not mine).
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
-
Wow. I can just imagine what it is like to have a doctor who was focred to take you on as a patient. How many patients can a doctor be forced to take on? As for finding GP's in your locality. The problem in far more widespread in Canada with most communities short of GPs and most GPs having more patients than they can reasonably cover. In Canada dental is not covered by government programs. Most companies offer coverage as a benefit. If you have no insurance and pay cash some dentists give you a break (not mine).
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
I suppose that if you either (a) move into an area and can't find a GP, or (b) you and your present GP fall out for whatever reason and you decide you want another GP in another GP practice or the GP decides he no longer wants you on his list then... It is a right to have primary medical support in the form of a GP, thus the Family Practitioner Committee are legally obliged to find you a GP practice within your locality. Is the problem in Canada partly due to its geographical nearness to the United States where GP contracts etc can be more lucrative than equivalent in Canada? Dental practices that are partly or wholly NHS subscribed are few and far apart. This is due almost entirely to (a) red tape and (b) the non requirement in UK law for a dentist to provide NHS services. So most are private and are happy to take your money but not subsidised NHS money.
-
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:
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.
FTA:
What I am proposing is that our brain is both the transmitter and the receiver of its own electromagnetic signals in a feedback loop that generates the conscious em field as a kind of informational sink.
If the brain is not acting as an antenna, then how does it transmit? How do you modify an EM field without injecting energy into it? How do you get modified by the EM field without removing energy from it? You tell me how information goes between the brain and the mind without an antenna, in this theory. If you want to use an EM field, you have to play by EM rules. The article is specific that the field is contained within the skull.
FTA:
Can the cemi theory account for telepathy? No, I'm afraid not. The em field outside the head is far too weak and it is highly unlikley that any other brain could detect it...
It also specifically talks about the interaction of the waves generating structure in the EM field.
FTA:
Em fields are waves that tend to cancel out when the peaks and troughs from many unsynchronised waves combine. But if neurones fire together, then the peaks and troughs of their em fields will reinforce each other to generate a large disturbance to the overall em field.
These waves have to fit inside the head, since the last quote says they do, and the waves need to be small enough to have some level of structure within the brain, given the interference pattern he expounds here. That means THz or higher freqs are required. Remember, if we are talking 18 Hz brain waves, the wave length is on the order of 10k miles, which, at least for the people I know, does not fit inside their heads. The brain does not generate THz waves, so it can not be generating a structured EM field within the confines of the brain. Physics says this theory is BS.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
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:
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.
Bits per second ARE a precise, measurable mechanism. Depending on the transmit mechanism, if may also be discernible and physical. So, if you believe in a material mind, it can be. It has to be.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
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.
FTA:
What I am proposing is that our brain is both the transmitter and the receiver of its own electromagnetic signals in a feedback loop that generates the conscious em field as a kind of informational sink.
If the brain is not acting as an antenna, then how does it transmit? How do you modify an EM field without injecting energy into it? How do you get modified by the EM field without removing energy from it? You tell me how information goes between the brain and the mind without an antenna, in this theory. If you want to use an EM field, you have to play by EM rules. The article is specific that the field is contained within the skull.
FTA:
Can the cemi theory account for telepathy? No, I'm afraid not. The em field outside the head is far too weak and it is highly unlikley that any other brain could detect it...
It also specifically talks about the interaction of the waves generating structure in the EM field.
FTA:
Em fields are waves that tend to cancel out when the peaks and troughs from many unsynchronised waves combine. But if neurones fire together, then the peaks and troughs of their em fields will reinforce each other to generate a large disturbance to the overall em field.
These waves have to fit inside the head, since the last quote says they do, and the waves need to be small enough to have some level of structure within the brain, given the interference pattern he expounds here. That means THz or higher freqs are required. Remember, if we are talking 18 Hz brain waves, the wave length is on the order of 10k miles, which, at least for the people I know, does not fit inside their heads. The brain does not generate THz waves, so it can not be generating a structured EM field within the confines of the brain. Physics says this theory is BS.
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.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
That's like saying he was absolutely correct in a fantasy world framework.
OK, tell me when YOU deal with gravity and the Newtonian definition of gravity does not produce results that are correct to a greater degree than your ability to measure. Your world is this fantasy world framework you blow off. Or do you use GR to figure out how long it will take a ball to fall from the second story window? Einstein was wrong, by your definition. His method of representation produces a singularity in a black hole. Based on quantum theory, we have reason to think space-time may be quantized in volume. Packing everything into one volume quanta does not give a singularity. So clearly, by your definition, Einstein is wrong, since he does not properly predict all possible situations, no matter how unusual.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Physics says this theory is BS.
3 dimensional physics, but n dimensional physics suggests otherwise, doesn't it?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Last time I checked, string theory did not suddenly add bandwidth to an EM field that was not there previously. It did not let 10k wave length waves have complex interference patterns that are in the cm range. But if you can show me a source, go ahead. I'm always open for learning, but the new information has to not contradict existent results. [It can contradict, but it has to show why the contradiction of reality does not make it wrong] If it says C is greater than, well, C, it is going to have a hard sell. If it blows off the Shannon–Hartley theorem, same deal.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
Oakman wrote:
I prefer a Christmas Spruce myself. The teal color goes nicely in my livingroom.
"Teal". Gah. I have a complex about that word.
-
Last time I checked, string theory did not suddenly add bandwidth to an EM field that was not there previously. It did not let 10k wave length waves have complex interference patterns that are in the cm range. But if you can show me a source, go ahead. I'm always open for learning, but the new information has to not contradict existent results. [It can contradict, but it has to show why the contradiction of reality does not make it wrong] If it says C is greater than, well, C, it is going to have a hard sell. If it blows off the Shannon–Hartley theorem, same deal.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
RichardM1 wrote:
I'm always open for learning
Unfortunately, you'll have to look elsewhere for teaching. In these matters, I am but an egg. Able to ask question of my betters and hope to understand the answer. In this case, my question would be something like - what is the bandwidth of the extension of that EM field into the seventh dimension? FWIW: Sometimes when I try to wrap my head around string theory, I keep hearing Obi Wan saying, 'Trust the String Theory, Luke.'
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
That's like saying he was absolutely correct in a fantasy world framework.
OK, tell me when YOU deal with gravity and the Newtonian definition of gravity does not produce results that are correct to a greater degree than your ability to measure. Your world is this fantasy world framework you blow off. Or do you use GR to figure out how long it will take a ball to fall from the second story window? Einstein was wrong, by your definition. His method of representation produces a singularity in a black hole. Based on quantum theory, we have reason to think space-time may be quantized in volume. Packing everything into one volume quanta does not give a singularity. So clearly, by your definition, Einstein is wrong, since he does not properly predict all possible situations, no matter how unusual.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
RichardM1 wrote:
OK, tell me when YOU deal with gravity and the Newtonian definition of gravity does not produce results that are correct to a greater degree than your ability to measure. Your world is this fantasy world framework you blow off. Or do you use GR to figure out how long it will take a ball to fall from the second story window?
In my world, close enough is good enough. There isn't gonna be much difference between Classical Mechanics and General Relativity when I'm dropping a ball from a second story window, height only vaguely measured, ignoring air resistance, using an approximate value for 'g', and trying to time it with a dodgy school stopwatch. I'm not sure, but I don't think that that's how they calculate planetary orbits.
RichardM1 wrote:
Einstein was wrong, by your definition. His method of representation produces a singularity in a black hole. Based on quantum theory, we have reason to think space-time may be quantized in volume. Packing everything into one volume quanta does not give a singularity. So clearly, by your definition, Einstein is wrong, since he does not properly predict all possible situations, no matter how unusual.
Yes, in the end I think his theories will be improved on. They may not necessarily even BE wrong, just incomplete, or whatever. When the fuzzy area between Relativity and Quantum Physics is brought into sharper focus, they're both going to change.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Your view of Jefferson is not that far removed from the way Stalin used the name of Lenin to give weight to his own views.
I'm not the one misusing Jefferson in that way. Using a letter that Jefferson wrote to some church as a means of reinterpreting a constitution which represented the true political principles jefferson et al risked so much to create is far more characteristic of your allegation than is anything I have attributed to him. Jeffersonian government is the diametric oppostie of all forms of socialism. It was not established to provide individuals with welfare or to make life fair or to protect the weak from the strong or the poor from the rich. It was created to give the people the means of doing all of that for theselves. That is a simple fact supportable by every shred of actual historic information available.
Christian Graus wrote:
Nevertheless, like I said, there's other people here who both rob you of the chance to be an extreme point of view, and certainly I would not lump you in with them, in terms of the fact that you discuss and participate here.
My points of view would have been mainstream through out 90 percent or so of this nation's history and to 90 percent or so of its population.
Christian Graus wrote:
don't agree with you, but it's always good to discuss things. What I have against Illion and Adnan is not that I disagree, but that they refuse to defend or discuss their views.
I agree that points of view once made should be defended. However, I honestly don't find Illion's points (when he actually makes them) to be any more radical than most of those on the other side of the issues.
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 was not established to provide individuals with welfare or to make life fair or to protect the weak from the strong or the poor from the rich. It was created to give the people the means of doing all of that for theselves.
Yeah? And how do people do that themselves? Like they did it in the Wild West?
"What if Jesus was gay? I'm not saying he was, but it wouldn't make him any worse. I mean, it could be -- he was a gentle guy, he never got married... every prayer ends with 'Ahhhh Men'." -- Bill Maher
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
It was not established to provide individuals with welfare or to make life fair or to protect the weak from the strong or the poor from the rich. It was created to give the people the means of doing all of that for theselves.
Yeah? And how do people do that themselves? Like they did it in the Wild West?
"What if Jesus was gay? I'm not saying he was, but it wouldn't make him any worse. I mean, it could be -- he was a gentle guy, he never got married... every prayer ends with 'Ahhhh Men'." -- Bill Maher
Al Beback wrote:
Yeah? And how do people do that themselves? Like they did it in the Wild West?
You mean hard work? Yes, thats how you do it.
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:
seeing things in more simple terms (Newton's falling apple)
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.
Stan Shannon wrote:
'screwy' way (Einstein's relativity)
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.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
And he was able to arrive at that conclusion after consideration of the system in its most elemental terms - a falling apple.
I am so glad we have wise and hard thinking folks like you to explain Newton to the rest of us. I am sure that many folks have compared you to Asimov. However, some few of us holdouts who don't recognize your insights quite as well as I am sure your friends and family do, think that what made Newton great was he realised how complex the answer had to be to explain the apple falling down and the moon remaining in orbit.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
No offense to you personally, but, do you insist on being a condescending ass whenever Stan posts? I think he has a valid argument with respect to mind and the notion that it represents a conundrum for the physical world. At least in terms of our current understanding. And I was truly looking forward to the explanation from our boy genius Ravel on how to explain the mind in physical terms. I personally distinguish mind separately from brain. One being a computer, and the other as a basis for personality. Else there can arguably be nothing different from an android and a human besides the body. AI could then lead to people. And we'd have to support equal rights to them under this concept. Here's an question for the evolutionists, and I am one by the way, I just think there is also more going on that I'm suspending judgment on. So, technically I'm not a "True Believer" but an open minded skeptic that thinks that evolution is the correct direction. But not the destination. Does mind require an organic container? Could a collection of circuits attain mind in the sense that Humans have it, and what does that suggest for things like the Semantic Web? A loaded question, but I'm seriously curious about peoples thoughts on it.
This statement is false
-
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.
I would say that you are arguing about the function of the brain, and Stan is contemplating the idea of mind itself as something the brain generates. Does consciousness in fact arise from the mind? Is this a scientific statement? You've stated it as fact here. My curiosity wonders about what Stan is asking. Consciousness and self awareness in the context of the mind. And then there are the Hindu notions of Samadhi where one transcends mind in their state of consciousness to achieve thoughtless being. Which refutes that consciousness depends on mind. Although not that it arises from it. Do you Ravel, think that an android could develop mind in the sense we are aware of it? Or do you think this is reserved for organic beings?
This statement is false
-
No offense to you personally, but, do you insist on being a condescending ass whenever Stan posts? I think he has a valid argument with respect to mind and the notion that it represents a conundrum for the physical world. At least in terms of our current understanding. And I was truly looking forward to the explanation from our boy genius Ravel on how to explain the mind in physical terms. I personally distinguish mind separately from brain. One being a computer, and the other as a basis for personality. Else there can arguably be nothing different from an android and a human besides the body. AI could then lead to people. And we'd have to support equal rights to them under this concept. Here's an question for the evolutionists, and I am one by the way, I just think there is also more going on that I'm suspending judgment on. So, technically I'm not a "True Believer" but an open minded skeptic that thinks that evolution is the correct direction. But not the destination. Does mind require an organic container? Could a collection of circuits attain mind in the sense that Humans have it, and what does that suggest for things like the Semantic Web? A loaded question, but I'm seriously curious about peoples thoughts on it.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
but, do you insist on being a condescending ass whenever Stan posts?
Not every time, no. Just when I think he deserves it - about 90% of the time.
Synaptrik wrote:
I personally distinguish mind separately from brain.
So do I - so do most people. Is this supposed to be earth-shaking? If so I don't get it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface