Jump to content

DanMP

Senior Members
  • Posts

    363
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DanMP

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 ...
  4. 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 ...
  5. 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.
  6. Indeed. Sorry. Well, then the question about the field changes to: what are the fields and how they were created?
  7. It does not. Not in QED, the best current theory. I didn't learn QED, but I found on Wikipedia: This is great. Exchange of photons is what I have in mind (although a bit differently). The fact that the electromagnetic field was successfully "discarded", opens the possibility for the GR geometric model for gravity to be also replaced with some kind of quantum theory, as KJW suggested:
  8. I would ask. There is no need to, but I would like to know. And this is the beauty of physics: there still are questions to ask and things to investigate/discover. and/or new theories ... Since we know there is a dark matter, we should be opened to such possibilities.
  9. I wrote: and I meant that, although it was on topic in the beginning: my idea (the one I underlined and bolded above) was contested ... and an interesting discussion about time and space developed. This discussion I suggested to be separated, because we no longer referred to the OP idea about a non-physical dimension or space where thoughts, inner images, the inner voice, dreams, and experiences reside.
  10. Who would? You? Autonomous robots to work for us is not a bad idea, especially when AI will be 1, able to control/maintain fusion (I recently read something about that), in order to have plenty and cheap energy, and 2, able to safely control such a robot.
  11. I was sure that you will say that 😀 and I may offer other examples, like swimming in the ocean or spacewalking, but you can say that the ocean is an object and the spacesuit is also required. So, yes, we need objects. We are, also, objects 😀 Still, the fact that we need objects in order to see/experience space, doesn't change the fact that we see/observe changes/events not the time dimension, nor the fact that time dimension is different, as I explained before (you can't stop or go back in time). It's not a problem, because we can (and did) make clocks, devices that count repetitive events, so we have more than our subjective perception. I think that this discussion about the perception of time and space should be separated from the thread, because it is no longer on topic.
  12. OK, thank you for all your answers and for your patience. Thank you! I prefer the second one.
  13. Yes, I understood your point, and it's a good one ... in understanding time. Not in seeing it. Swansont agreed that time is something we cannot see, touch, feel in any way: My point was/is that we observe/see change (in fact the succession of changes/events), and from that we understand that it must be something somehow similar with a spatial dimension, something that we call time. But, as I said, time is not quite similar with space dimensions, because you can't go back in time or stop in it (stop your advance in time, ageing). Not absolutely. A blind man can sense space just by walking in all directions. He can even measure distances, by counting his steps.
  14. You are talking about the theoretical/abstract model. I am asking about how the mass actually does that.
  15. I fixed it: The question was, see above, how the mass can change "the curvature of spacetime" in my proximity? Can you answer this question please?
  16. Maybe, but your answer is not. The strike line was unintentional. I try to correct it.
  17. Because Earth or other body you mention are far away and your ship cannot be affected directly by them without "an action at a distance." What it can be affected by directly is the geometry of spacetime Who said that my ship has to be directly affected by the incoming mass? I wrote: The question was, see above, how the mass can change "the curvature of spacetime" in my proximity?
  18. In the case of the Earth approaching my spaceship location, yes, you can do that. But remember that you wrote: so we can replace the Earth in the scenario with a huge spaceship, arriving near my location (much closer than the Earth would do) by using its thrusters (not in "free fall"). Again: You would stil "blame" the affected geometry or some other geometry? Why? And I repeat the question:
  19. I can sense the space my moving freely through it. In fact objects are not always good because they can block me (I can't really sense the space from a coffin 🙂). On the other hand, in order to see its expanse, yes, objects, like stars, are very useful. Also meter sticks are good/needed to measure lengths. Yes, the change of doors, from open to close, can stop/block me from moving through space, but there is no real temporal obstacle, I cannot stop/block your advance in time using objects (or any thing that I can imagine). This is another major difference for time (compared to space dimensions), besides the impossibility to go back. This is very similar to what I wrote in my first post here. What you can see/observe is change, but this allows you to define a time dimension. More about my opinion regarding time is here.
  20. Yes, but there is always a mass (or energy) required ... The geometry doesn't change without a change in mass/energy. So I would "blame" the approaching mass, not the geometry that is affected by it.
  21. You can see me changing from walking to jumping. You can't see the "expanse" of time as you can see the expanse of space. It seems to me we move exactly like that Ok, so move back in time as you move back in space
  22. And what is wrong with 3? The changes mentioned in 1 and 2 only occur when the Earth is approaching ... Why are you discounting the Earth as a cause?
  23. We can directly observe space dimensions by moving (walking, jumping) in all directions (as long as there is no obstacle to prevent it), but in time we cannot move like that, and the only thing (regarding time) we can directly observe, is change. We see the sunrises/sunsets and we consider that a day passed between two of them, we count the oscillations of a pendulum and calculate how many hours, minutes and seconds passed, and so on. But the observables are the events we count (and the changes in and around us), not time itself. Back on topic: I wrote that the mind is the result/product of brain activity, and that the observable is the brain, not the mind. Now I want/need to add that the mind is in fact observable, but only from inside
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.