fredreload

28 minutes ago, CharonY said:

!

Moderator Note

As OP has not established that the discussion is based on accepted biological knowledge, the thread has been moved to speculations. As such it follows the usual speculation rules and requires some support to allow a proper discussion.

 

Ya, that is cool. So what defines one person's consciousness from another? The voltage voltz level?

But even with a high voltage gain on RC resonance does not equal consciousness right? Or are you saying there is infinite voltage in the brain at the resonance point?

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

All swansont did was ask you to support something you seem to be taking as a given. I don't know where you read all the rest of the stuff you think he's saying/implying. 

Why do you think only the thalamus is responsible?

Ya, it's the whole consciousness circuit(RLC) that causes the voltage to resonate, good one.

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Provide evidence (from mainstream science) that consciousness arise from within the thalamus. As I had asked.

 

 

Got it, I will work on it more tomorrow.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

I’m not saying anything about the topic, so this is moot.

The problem is that you are asserting things as fact, and asking questions based on it, and that’s unacceptable. It is an example of an argument not made in good faith. You had a thread where you asserted unequivocally that the seat of the consciousness is in the striatum. Now we have this.

You’re making it up as you go. That’s not going to fly. It’s not science.

 

 

Then what do you want me to do @@?

52 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

What is the evidence that it does?

You simply have to stop posing questions based on unsubstantiated premises. 

IOW, you can’t ask how aliens built the moon until you establish that aliens actually built the moon.

 

You cannot say a wave is alive. A wave is just a change in voltage. For instance a square wave. The consciousness "could" arise from a waveform, but we simply do not know enough about voltage and consciousness to test if it even exist. If you are saying a waveform is alive then a computer is alive, and any electrical appliances carrying a voltage is alive, which I sort of rule out because the possibility seems low or I would not know. The only way to test this is not from something that does not exist but from actual evidence that we can learn from, for instance, human, or any organism exhibiting a consciousness for that matter.

It seems you are implying that the consciousness arises out of voltage resonance(this might not be a term but I used it for clarification), or electrical resonance, but a resonance is just a change in amplitude, I can have a resonance on 5 volts or I can have a resonance on 5000 volts, the implication to which the consciousness arise from this phenomenon is not well defined.

Now when we turn on a computer, it provides this hardware architecture with electricity so we can play games and listen to music on it. The brain is a bit similar to a computer and that the thalamus could be the one generating this main hardware architecture with electrical signal in the way of a waveform. The problem is I do not see how the consciousness arise from this waveform because it is just a wave and I sure think the computer is not conscious being something capable of generating an identical waveform through its hardware architecture(or any circuits with an output Q in that matter). So how does the consciousness arise from within the thalamus? Please let me know, any hints or theories are welcomed. Thanks.

13 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

No, you would still be yourself.

Ya sorry = =, wasn't thinking through.

Can I link the neuron in my hand to a radio transmitter? So that the conductor touched by this electromagnetic field would become myself?

This is problematic, the pars compacta dopaminergic D1 path going into the striatum is only running at 8Hz whereas the gabaergic path from the pars reticulata going into the thalamus is running at 68Hz. If you think about the human consciousness it cannot be running at 8Hz for the striatum, but it is more likely to be 68Hz for the thalamus. Did I make a mistake about the seat of consciousness being the striatum? Should it be the thalamus instead?

On 3/10/2021 at 10:45 PM, DrmDoc said:

I've commented on this subject before with actual evidence presented in an article link that iNow provided:  About life and consciousness. - Page 9 - General Philosophy - Science Forums

As I suggested, consciousness occurs in brain function where afferent (input) sensory stimuli merges with efferent (output) sensory responses.  

 

I apologize, you might be correct on the matter.

P.S. I only look for the truth, but it takes a while to convince me.

47 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

You have been here long enough to know that "go watch this video" is not in keeping with the rules, and that simply restating your claim is not going to fly.

Last chance: provide actual scientific evidence that this claim is true.

 

Since when is watch this video not a rule anymore? You guys are just making things up. If you neglect any scientific evidence I provide, such as a pdf, or an article, it is not my responsibility to recap it for you. Anyway, think of heartbeat, which pumps at an average of 60~100 times per minute. What do you think is controlling that? It is in the brainstem. It generates a rhythm. The same thing is for the consciousness, which is also controlled in the brainstem, perhaps some 60~100 times per second since consciousness is not continuous? Speculation. If you know better you can reply it for me. I am just speculating here.

P.S. The striatum is receiving the signal for its activation. They are acting like beacons. I will have to look for the article regarding its activation.

12 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Establish, with citations, that this is a thing

 

For beginners, check out the video below on brain wave. The idea is that each person has a different frequency that constitutes their consciousness and that is what distinguish one person from another, you from myself. The twins have a similar brain wave frequency(similar but not the same), so sometimes they seem to be able to feel or guess what the other twin is thinking. The idea is, if two brains has the same brain wave frequency that constitutes their consciousness, they are essentially the same person. In this case what they perceive, in terms of brain signaling, would just merge, based on my speculation.

Video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qu9KnohYG0

So there are two brains with the same consciousness frequency, one is awake and the other one is asleep. What does the person perceive?

I would say get an ICO, but if you could figure out a different use for blockchain that would be cool as well, have not thought of other uses for blockchain though.

17 hours ago, CharonY said:

e.g. create mammalian expression vectors and other purposes outside of bacteria.

Hmm, the problem with virus introduced expression vectors have always been that it cannot be integrated with the host genome. Or rather, the virus cannot insert the expression vector at a correct spot in the host genome and that is why crispr is introduced. The mammalian expression has always been, after insertion, expressing itself independently from the host genome. Well, I wouldn't know if there is a way to insert the viral vector at a correct place, but then that would mean we would not need crispr do we?

Alright, I got a better idea. This is a virus, shown on this site(https://ysjournal.com/bacteriophages-the-case-for-viruses-in-treatment-development/).

You extract the DNA, modify it with a crispr, and package it into another virus, and place it onto a cell for insertion of genetic material and replication. Simple right? Just swap the DNA genetic material.

Windows xp, the next best thing after windows 95. I recall having a similar problem with the laptop, so I just turned off the standby mode(set it to forever). You could try formatting and re-installing windows, remember to back up the files.

I would go with C# and NPOI. Back then when we had to export a document we go (ex):

worksheet ws = new worksheet()

irow, icell, etc to export the headers and contents from the datatable.

Works pretty well if you are already using Visual Studio and building apps with it.

After the invention of transistors it goes from something spinning to well logic gates. Personally I would build a computer out of spinning cartridges, but then that would not be revolutionary.

On 4/7/2021 at 2:32 AM, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

It is not a cyborg, what I was talking about 

 

Whereas it used to be just a mode of social presence and surface, the body has, in these post-modern days , evolved into a symbol of personality. Being incarnate is in contrast to  seeming to be/ in contrast to  seeming or appearing  to be there carnally ..............

If you can grab a future mind swapping device, then we will get there professor  

I was dwelling on this research back in 2012, but Salk has not made any progress since then. The idea is they used a tet-casette method for the genomically  modified mice to activate the Yamanaka factor genes to induce partial reprogramming to the muscle cells. One problem I can think of is it could turn into teratoma, but they mentioned low dosage on the doxycycline and inject once every week or two days. On top of that they have only experimented on mice with progeria = =. You could use a set of cell signaling molecules to activate the Yamanaka factors, such as BMP4, Nodal, Activin, etc, but if it does not turn into teratoma, or you got the timing right, then we will get into it = =. Right now some Russian group took over, called the Youthful Genetics(or something similar), you can track their progress on Facebook.

P.S. Aging is a one direction thing, you can brake it, but you cannot go in reverse direction without unwinding(driving backwards).

Hmm, the idea is you need to get the genetic material into a nucleus. A while ago there was this building life from scratch where they create a goat virus DNA from scratch(Yes a goat virus for safety precautions so if it gets out of the lab it would not infect humans). I am not sure their method of creation, I guess it is probably something similar to 3D printing DNA, once you have the DNA, insert/swap it into a nucleus of any cell and it should work.

P.S. A virus does have a nucleus right? Wouldn't know, but you need to get the DNA into a cell to start producing proteins from the ribosomes.

If you know the answer you are free to tell me as to which nuclei in the reticular formation in the brainstem I should modify to change the consciousness frequency. And how the nuclei should be modified.

P.S. The idea is they sort of look like an earphone, not a headphone. The volume control in the middle(reticular formation) leading to both ear pieces resembling the striatums on both sides.

So I traced the D1 loop back to its origin, which is the substantia nigra connecting to the reticular formation(brainstem) of the midbrain all the way down to the medulla oblongata region. Why is reticular formation interesting? Because it governs all the reflex action such as breathing, heart beat, consciousness, and sneezing. The way it generates consciousness is it provides dopaminergic signal to the striaum through the substantia nigra of the D1 loop(how I trace it back to reticular formation) and provides a constant beat of signal.

My question:

How are the nuclei(group of neurons) in the reticular formation capable of providing(generating) a precise signal or frequency of signals to the striatum to create a unique consciousness? Think of a ball of neurons emanating pulse of electromagnetic radiation. That is how I think the signal is generated. But as you can see, I place this on the speculation forum, so any comments and corrections are welcomed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Striatum#/media/File:Basal_ganglia_circuits.svg

P.S. Something must set the timing to the nuclei, an example would be the music box.

10 minutes ago, zapatos said:

The hubris...

 

Yes yes, we are in A-Team, got it = =

22 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Many of them who discuss science on this very site actually take the time to cite such evidence. Why don't you?

If a thread is closed, it's because it was breaking the rules. Yours are usually closed because you stop looking for evidence and start asserting things you haven't established, something that effectively kills the conversation.

Many gets closed because I have to work on everything by myself with no backup.

P.S. My bad, I will stop being stubborn next time.