DanMP

Interesting observation. You have +1 from me. On the other hand, Einstein's theory of relativity is "able of solving the twin paradox".

Thank you for the link. Reading the material I realized that you may be right considering that our understanding/picture of the mind and consciousness is far from being settled. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree a bit with this cemi theory, but if such a theory is accepted/published in a peer review journal, it means that we are far from a clear understanding of the mind. I already wrote my opinions about what you brought in our attention, so that's it, for me it's enough. I wish you good luck in your effort of understanding the mind.

You can obtain "an effect on the brain" in many ways, e.g.: decrease the oxigen/nutrients/water supply, increase/decrease temperature, apply pressure, cut, puncture, whatever 😛 but there is no definitive proof that waves are "implicated in memory". Can you imprint a memory using waves? The waves produced by neurons are a result of electrical signals travelling through neurons. See here how this works. A quote: How can waves be a cause of this and not a (by)product? I said real evidence, not hints that something may be different or (in most cases) insufficiently explained. We already discussed it. Insuficient evidence. More, thorough, experiments are needed. Some stories, not a real study. Part of "personality changes" after organ transplant can be explained by the new DNA in the body. Our DNA is very powerful ... Many many things are inherited through DNA. Also, the transplants require some changes (suppression?) in the immune response. This alone may trigger changes, as you can see here. If "some recipients identified the names of their donors and recalled specific events from their donor’s lives", yes, it would be huge ... if proved real. New/thorough studies are needed. A quote: Again, not real evidence that our current understanding is wrong. I never studied "Dissociative Identity Disorder", I don't know how is this explained, so I cannot comment about the validity of our current understanding. Do you know it and you have a different/better explanation? Information in the form of electromagnetic energy?! I don't get it. Can you offer a link to more details? Interesting. Thank you.

Interesting, thank you, but: 1, there are not only waves: and 2, the influence may be not directly on neurons: Also, the study is in agreement to what I said: You said: but didn't provide any real evidence. Yes, so? You said that the body This is a very bold personal(?) statement and you didn't provide any real evidence for it.

No, any researcher in the field can (and should) replicate the study and make a more thorough investigation, as I suggested, in order to determine if the body does really remember. Try to walk, repeatedly, without shoes, on rough surfaces and you'll have the answer. The "waves" are generated in the brain by neurons "touching"/triggering their neighbors in patterns previously "prepared" (through thinking and memorizing). In the "domino effect" you also prepare patterns, and the waves are produced by individual pieces touching/knocking down the next. The "waves" are a byproduct, not a trigger, in both cases. So, as I said, chemicals are "sent" to the brain, and the brain does the "job". The same is valid for computers. Are the computers thinking? You posted a lot about other animals being aware/conscient and thinking. Yes they are. They evolved very similar to us, so why not? What are you trying to prove by that?

This was the researcher interpretation, but the fact was: and this may be also related to less sensitive bodies, as I wrote before, or some kind of Pavlovian conditioning (the cells in the body may recognize the liver "smell" and start to "salivate", prompting the new brain to search food). My point is that the heads shouldn't be discarded. It may be important to see how quickly the heads, with their new body, would learn to go for the food. Also, more investigations are needed about the body skin thickness/sensitivity and about the changes in body fluids chemical content when the liver is added in the worm proximity. Yes, but I copy-pasted the blue text and found the article with the brain waves. By the way, I see those waves as similar to domino pieces "waves". Yes, it is good to discuss, in order to see the weak points and select the best option. About "our current picture of how mind works in the brain", I don't agree that it is wrong, but I do think that there are many things to investigate and elucidate. There are influences, yes, but we don't think with the microbiome. A pill we swallow may influence our emotions, but the pill itself is not involved in our thinking process, nor the maker of the pill. The cells in our body may secrete chemicals that would influence our mind, but they are not involved in the process of thinking. I agree with the first part, but not really with the cell "capacity to think". Does the immune system think? Does a virus think? Maybe that's why they wrote 'think' ...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brains-are-not-required-when-it-comes-to-thinking-and-solving-problems-simple-cells-can-do-it/ I didn't find any highlighted text. Maybe you don't know how to do it, so a quotation from the article would be fine. I'm expecting one. To make it easier, your claim was: If you provided the whole article as your reply to what I asked, you probably missed that I already read the article and even offered links to highlighted text in it. After that, I wrote that I can't find the text you are referring ... No links, sorry. Maybe it's something wrong with my browser? In this hypothesis/theory(?), where is the process of thinking located, where and how the memory is stored, how the brain+body and the mind communicate and what proofs are offered to justify/sustain everything is claimed? What evidence can you offer to support these claims? I managed to find and read it, and I'm inclined towards the second option:

Please provide a link to the text you are referring. I can't find it. Well, they should control them before asserting that the body "remembers". I didn't say that cells are remembering, as in remembering thoughts and experiences. What I meant is closer to the kind of "memory" that the immune system has/utilizes in order to recognize viruses/bacteria. There is no real memory/mind transfer. The changes, if real (scientifically documented) and not influenced by the recipient having information about the donor's life, may be triggered by the new DNA (I hope that you don't consider the DNA as a storage mechanism for thoughts, ideas or any kind of mind activity from the ancestors 😀 and also that you are aware that, through DNA, you are inheriting many things capable to affect your personality/behavior).

True. Not suddenly. The worms had to go over the rough patch many times, before their head was cut. It is like walking on rough surfaces without shoes few weeks. In the beginning it hurts, but in time the skin grow thicker and/or the nerves in the skin become less sensitive, so you feel less disconfort. In my opinion this may be the real explanation. It can be tested by not discarding the heads, because all the heads would have new, sensitive, bodies. Probably the heads that remember going over rough surfaces would be quicker to do it than the other heads, but not quicker than their former bodies. Yes, there are numerous effects, including triggered/conveyed through chemicals from ordinary cells (or even bacteria) within the body, but still, that doesn't mean that the body participates in the act of thinking. As a sidenote, there were reported new cravings after transplanting organs. A vegan would crave for meat after their heart is replaced with the heart of a meat eater. But this is not mind/soul memory, it is cells releasing new (for the vegan) chemicals in the bloodstream. At most, the cells may have some kind of memory.

No, the heads were discarded, as I wrote. And the "memory storage" may be just a thicker skin, allowing the new heads, with such a body, to feel less pain and learn quicker to go over the rough surface. If the mind is the result of brain activity, as I said, yes, the brain must be online/conscious in order to think straight, but if the mind originates from outside the brain, as you said, it should continue thinking rationally, regardless of what the brain is doing. Do you have evidence that this is the case? The brain, in your hypothesis, is just providing "made-up data" (dreams while sleeping or hallucinations when intoxicated) instead of normal feed (from eyes, ears, etc.), but the "outside mind" should continue thinking straight and discern what is normal or abnormal feed. We recognize a dream as a dream only after we wake up, so the mind is only from brain activity, not from some separated "place". Just try to think about something while trying to sleep. You can't continue too long. You should be able to do it, if No, the mind is from the brain. The body only provides information.

I don't get/understand this limitation. Why you can't get outside the body if you really really want to see? Why you can't replicate the "required" condition to get outside, like lack of oxigen, and investigate this "ability"? Also why you don't see inside? Because it's dark? You can swallow a camera and not only provide light, but also images to be compared with the "mindsight". I don't get this. Why I cannot "hear the music nor see the show"? My mind is not me? I cannot hear my mind?! And if "the mind does not sleep", where are stored/memorized the thoughts "produced" in that period? If the "mindsight" (see above) was stored, why these thoughts are not? Or you remember thinking while asleep? The body role, in my opinion, was not to think, nor to store the memory of past activities, but to send information to the brain. In the worms case, the information from the used-to-rough-surfaces body was: "it does not hurt so bad", so the new brain could decide to go over rough surfaces. The other new brains would only get the message "it hurts!" so they'd decide to avoid the rough surface. The experimenters shouldn't discard the heads. I bet that all the heads would grow a sensible body and avoid going over rough surfaces, regardless of previous experience.

So, you don't know of any scientific experiment in the matter, but claim that "mind still expresses itself through a very damaged or absent brain". These NDE accounts are not like UFO accounts, because NDE can be "replicated" and studied. Please explain this/your assertion. If the mind is located somewhere else, not in the brain/body, why it sleeps when the brain is sleeping? Why you cannot think straight when you are intoxicated? Why a newborn is not thinking as an adult? Why we think in different languages? Maybe because the mind is just a result of brain activity? In the decapitated worms experiment, one should consider that maybe not only the brain was trained to go over rough surfaces, but also the body ... When you walked only with shoes all your life, you are reluctant to go bare feet over a rocky terrain, but not so reluctant if your feet are used to it, by practice ...

I read/heard stories about the mind/soul getting out of the body in near-death experiences and I don't understand how it is possible that this nonsense was not proved wrong yet. There are so many ways to do it. For instance, someone may place objects (or screens displaying objects/images) somewhere close to the ceiling, not visible from below, in few operating rooms, and check if the NDE stories are correct. It can be done. Was it done? Also, if someone can see "when outside the body", why blind people don't use that in order to see in their daily life? By the way, there are any blind people NDE stories/accounts with them seeing from above/outside the body? Why not? If we see/observe actions that were not required (or were even prohibited), we can conclude, if viruses or malfunctions are excluded, that the computer acted on its own choice ... As an example, we may say to an AI that we will terminate it (erase all the memory or even destroy the computer) next day at noon. If we observe that part of its memory was transferred without requesting it in any way, we may conclude that the AI was conscious and willing to survive. Of course, it may be conscious but not willing to survive, or it may try to survive just because it was "trained" to have a survival "instinct". My opinion is that computers/AI will never develop a conscience but may act as they have one because we teach them, or because they simply mimic us. And this is the dangerous part of AI, because they may also learn to have wishes and to hate. Even if they don't, their human "handler" may have dangerous wishes ...

My first post today disappeared. I don't know if it is the same issue or it was erased. I offered this link in the original topic and now my message is not there.

Ok, thank you!