We survive in the world because we study it, and the lives lived thousands of years ago were every bit as complex as they are now. I often wish I was born before the onset of the Anthropocene, otherwise known to me as ‘The Age Of Stupid’.
tapestryofsound
Last edited:
Observation of neural circuitry reveals a very striking deviation from logic and computer circuitry. Brain circuitry uses a strikingly high amount of stimulus feedback. The brain is extremely heavily interconnected with an average number of synapses per neuron of 5000. In the cerebellum, the fine motor regulator, Purkenje cells can have 200,000 synapses per cell.
Extreme biological brain complexity suggests the brain is indeed the generator of consiousciouss. This is corroborated by the well know fact certain drugs have on the state of consciousness. Needless to state the obvious, drugs can only interact by their chemical properties which again strongly suggests, it is the physical brain that is responsible for consciousness.
Another corroborate that the brain is the actual generator of consciousness is an experiment made when a subject was deeply asleep. External stimulation of the cortex did not result in widespread propagation, while stimulation during wakefulness, resulted in the stimulus propagating to other unrelated areas of the brain. This strongly suggests, during wakefulness, the brain is heavily interconnected, while during deep sleep it is disconnected.
Extreme biological brain complexity suggests the brain is indeed the generator of consiousciouss. This is corroborated by the well know fact certain drugs have on the state of consciousness. Needless to state the obvious, drugs can only interact by their chemical properties which again strongly suggests, it is the physical brain that is responsible for consciousness.
Another corroborate that the brain is the actual generator of consciousness is an experiment made when a subject was deeply asleep. External stimulation of the cortex did not result in widespread propagation, while stimulation during wakefulness, resulted in the stimulus propagating to other unrelated areas of the brain. This strongly suggests, during wakefulness, the brain is heavily interconnected, while during deep sleep it is disconnected.
Last edited:
And you stipulate that consciousness only emanate in this form throughout the multiverse?
Let's not mistake Mathematics for an actual science on par with Physics or Biology. It isn't.
Maths is the language of science and like it is possible to make a grammatically correct sentence that is actually impossible in reality (for example: The Mountain drove up a car) it is possible to create mathematical models which are mathematically correct but have nothing to do with physical reality.
I suspect String Theory is one of those.
It is possible to use it to explain (model) certain phenomena but that does in no way mean that it describes reality.
It also makes no testable predictions and it is not one unified theory.
You can explain (almost) everything with string theory but it needs to be tuned to every phenomenon ie the one which explains phenomenon A is a slightly different string theory that explains phenomenon B. They are not interchangeable.
You may have different assumptions from me. Unfortunately my assumptions are of a type which cannot be discussed here, even in this thread! I don't believe that physical things are the only things that exist, although 'thing' may not be a useful word in this context.jan.didden said:
What objective basis is there for believing that science is the correct method for obtaining all possible knowledge? Science is excellent at what it does, but that does not prove that it does everything that can be done. Science cannot investigate things which lie outside its realm, so you either have to use other methods or assume that no such things exist; by definition science cannot tell you which of these two ways is correct.edbarx said:
No, I am a strict monotheist.bozoc said:
I believe we are intended to enjoy this world, which includes studying it. Physicists can enjoy the universe in ways which are denied to other people. They in turn can enjoy it in ways which some physicists do not get.johnsurnamerobinson said:
I think all that shows is that the brain is a necessary substrate for our current consciousness. It does not exclude alternative substrates or alternative forms of consciousness. If I had a program which ran on a PDP-11 it is easy to show that if I fiddle with the PDP-11 I can modify the progam results and even stop it running. It would be a false conclusion to draw that programs can only run on PDP-11s (there are other computers); it would also be false to conclude that PDP-11 programs can only run on PDP-11s (there are emulators).edbarx said:
I too am not a fan of string theory. It looks too much like mathematicians playing fun games and kidding themselves that they are doing physics.
@ C Darwin.
Yep. Indeed, science is laying on the concept that things can be tested and answers to a patern which can be checked by experience. You could call that causality. Which glue to our perception of the world, if it s true at our scale it is limited by it.... It s true for us doesn t mean it is the whole reality. But if math are more powerfull, it is yet a tool limited by what we are and our substract.
So to question if the universe answers to a pattern is indeed a limit of the science, we are not sure if it works on the basis of casuality. But it seems to work for us as it glue to our brain patern and our scale. Maths still lays on our limits. Just a more powerfull tool, isn'it ? If there was no predictibility, our brain would like to test it yet, lol. String theory may be made on the same process than religion, i.e. projecting things (our powerfull questionning hability)
.
Yep. Indeed, science is laying on the concept that things can be tested and answers to a patern which can be checked by experience. You could call that causality. Which glue to our perception of the world, if it s true at our scale it is limited by it.... It s true for us doesn t mean it is the whole reality. But if math are more powerfull, it is yet a tool limited by what we are and our substract.
So to question if the universe answers to a pattern is indeed a limit of the science, we are not sure if it works on the basis of casuality. But it seems to work for us as it glue to our brain patern and our scale. Maths still lays on our limits. Just a more powerfull tool, isn'it ? If there was no predictibility, our brain would like to test it yet, lol. String theory may be made on the same process than religion, i.e. projecting things (our powerfull questionning hability)
.
We do indeed study the universe but as a species we are not well equiped to do so.Just look at all the conspiricy theorys online, flat earth ect ect,It is obvious our senses and thinking are just not up to it !!!This indicates to my mind that there is no all-knowing sub concience to which we can tap into as we please..Instead we imagine our own realitys because that is just about all we are able to do.The human race varies greatly in interlectual capacity every so often great scientists come along and advance our knowledge,But it still remains a slow process of standing on the shoulders of giants.
It seems the opening question is really about perception of reality & of course implies that consciousness is the observer in this act of perceiving reality?
In regard to this, I enjoy Donald Hoffmann's ideas on this observation "Do we see reality as it is?"
The idea that reality doesn't exist without our observing it is very egocentric, I believe
In regard to this, I enjoy Donald Hoffmann's ideas on this observation "Do we see reality as it is?"
The idea that reality doesn't exist without our observing it is very egocentric, I believe
Last edited:
There is a principle which states, between two wrongs choose the least. The scientific method is the 'best' method to date. If another method proves to be better, it will be good news to all.DF96 said:
Certainly, religions are not objective ,as what they propose to believe, cannot be verified. In fact, they speak about 'faith'.
A poster suggested that one cannot assume that animal/human consciousness is the only consciousness. The answer is, we don't know, and if we don't know, we research instead of making up answers. History has shown that making up answers is extremely prone to error.
A scientific hypothesis always requires data to suport it. The data may not be plain numbers, but as in the case of Quantum Mechanics, it can be long term observation like the dual nature of electrons. The latter diffract like waves. Moreover, electrons exhibit a characteristic frequency much like waves. There are more observations like these that instigated physicists in the early 20th century to put forward hypotheses which paved the way for the emergence of Quantum Mechanics.
String Theory is not an established science like Quantum Mechanics, so it is, a little immature to include it in this discussion. The reason is it still has problems describing certain phenomena correctly.
Last edited:
Human consciousness is becoming aware that you are aware that you are aware.
Usually happens to a child at around seven years of age.
Interesting clues for many worlds.
http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/Research/PossibleSolutionForRelativity.pdf
http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/Research/PossibleSolutionForRelativity.pdf
We've seen the planet change due to human activity. The only hope for the future is that we can now look forward to changes in ourselves as a species.
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.