DrmDoc

Today I learned that the Laws of Relativity and it's relevant math suggests that Earth's core is 2.5 years younger than its surface and, according to this SciShow Space video, the center of our sun is 39,000 years younger than its surface!

What an interesting fellow!

You know what? I like a little vinegar too, particularly on my fish-n-chips...yum...it's true, we Americans are getting fatter.

I don't use it often but yes, certain ketchup brands here are a little more sweet than tart.

Now, I do. Fascinating!

They are a decadent pleasure for which I bear no shame or remorse. Try one...just one... Ha!

Perhaps it was an exaggeration...but I do have a weakness for a certain sweet confection (Swedish Fish) that I, sparing no expense, buy in bulk and simply must have daily and often. In your garden you say? Hmmm...what a likely lovely place for them to live.

Yeah, sugar intake doesn't increase hyperactivity but it can and does enhance mental acuity, which could translate into a more alert and active child. 150 to 250 years ago, sugar was a more precious commodity. Here in the states, the wealthy kept their sugar stocks under lock and key. As to our average yearly sugar intake, I think mine is more like 300 lbs....I think a lot, so I require a bit more than average.

Ever wonder, How Your Brain Powers Your Thoughts? Well, today's your lucky day. That link is to a DNews Seeker video, which describes the process and how a protein (Glut4) in our neurons extract glucose from our bloodstream as we engage thought. Enjoy!

I think an annual physical fitness requirement is essential for active military service members. Alas, that sort of physical regimen for me, a civilian, is far in my very distant past. Nowadays, ,the measure of my fitness is managing a leisurely stroll in the park with frequent park bench respites. .

Perhaps your right, but this one might have missed a few steps...or maybe he's just missing a little something upstairs. Apologies.

Indeed, I'm surprised he broached the subject of time dilation again after it was closed. It just a maniacal carousel.

I simply refuse to go down that rabbit hole with JohnLesser again! Either he's trolling or willfully ignorant.

Today I learned the origin of Jell-O and how it became "America's Favorite Dessert"--it involved a very clever marketing ad that cost $336 in 1904 dollars.

They who and how? Please, elaborate. As for me, today I learned 28 fascinating facts about the history of cosmetics. Throughout history, a surprising amount used lead as a key component.

"If nothing's faster than light, how did the dark get there first?"--Yeah, it's probably an old joke, but it gave me a chuckle today.

What interesting fact or trivia did you learn today? For example, today I learned that a shamrock and four-leaf clover are not the same. It seems that shamrock describes a three-leaf clover and, as folklore has it, was used by St.Patrick as a religious totem. The four-leaf clover, which is not associated with St.Patrick, owes it's reputation for luck to its rarity. So, do you have something interesting to share?

Add another one. I just discovered Animalogic, very entertaining. Never heard of the Mane Wolf until today.

All of the above plus DNews, AsapScience, and Mental Floss; however, none of these channels are adequate substitutes for your independent investigation and study of all the available peer-reviewed evidence and published research covering your topic of interest.

I try to frame my thoughts around simplistic points of logic; e.g., if a = b, then b = a. I've asked myself, using that type of framing, if our brain is a computer, is a computer also a brain? For me, in view of what we know about brain function, the answer is confidently no because computers do not produce consciousness. Although our brain and computers share a type of input/output functional distinction, that distinction in computers do not lead to consciousness, which suggest that there is something more to brain function and consciousness than we can determine from mere processes of input and output. I agree that normal brain function is dependent on sensory input; however, analogous machinery processes convey an incomplete and unreliable picture of consciousness producing brain function. Our understanding of afferent (input) and efferent (output) data streaming processes doesn't tell us how those processes produce consciousness in the brain. If you're interested in learning more about brain function, I think it is best to begin with how our brain likely evolved, which may be difficult if you don't know where to begin your investigation of that aspect. Regardless, the functional anatomy of brain structure remarkably reveals its contiguous path of evolution.

If our ideas regard the production of consciousness by brain function, the neuron minutia isn't as important to our understanding as is the overall functional contribution of separate and distinct neuronal groups and how those groups interact to produce consciousness. For example, no spontaneous activity occurs in our cerebral cortex without a neural connection to subcortical structure, primarily the thalamus. Also, the cortex can sustain and recover from substantial injury without a threat to life; however, similar damage to the thalamus would be fatal. These separate functional effects positions the thalamus as more important to the organ that produces consciousness--the brain--than the cortex. These functional effects also tell us that the cortical neuronal groups are dependent on the thalamus neuronal group for functionality, which suggests that thalamic function is likely the root of consciousness construction. So, our investigation should involve what the thalamus neuronal group contributes to consciousness. What this neuronal group contributes is most completely explained by how and why the structure evolved--in my opinion.

I think what concerns me most about these computer analogs is their reductionist approach. There are several significant steps to consciousness--as the specifics of brain function provide--that simplistic computer comparisons inadequately convey.

Although computers may simulate brain function, they do not produce consciousness. Any and every idea with computer function and construct as a basis will lead to a false and misleading vision of consciousness--because, again, computers do not produce consciousness. If the goal is to understand or mechanically recreate consciousness, isn't it logical to first study and understand the only structure capable of producing consciousness? Learning how consciousness is produced by brain function is the only viable, reliable, rational path to a goal of some artificial construct.

No, I do not consider myself the same as any baby or anyone. I consider myself as an individual defined distinctly by my life experiences and my interpretation of those experiences. Even if I were a twin, I remain an individual separated by my unique perspective, isolated and insulated from others by the singular and dedicated sensory connections between my brain and my body. My understanding of Mr. Harris' quote was that we mostly feel like "passengers in a vehicle" because of some perceived disconnection between our cognitive processes and the body those processes inhabit. In reality, those processes arise from our physiological components and have never been cogently or convinceingly demonstrated to be otherwise. Are computers self-aware? By your logic, the brain is also a slide-ruler and abacus; however, these, like computers, do not possess or give rise to that quality of consciousness that is distinctive of brain function. Can a computer evolve or self-innovate beyond its structure and programming without aid of human hands and intelligence? Essentially, computers are tools that rudimentarily extend our brain's processing power and nothing more.

Just a comment on Sam Harris' quote--nonsense. I don't think most people feel like "passengers in a vehicle." Perhaps people who are continually engrossed in thought might, but not most people. To most people, I think, bodily perception is what gives us our sense of self as a separate and distinct individual apart from others and our environment. Also, I think efforts to understand consciousness through computer analogs are just wrongheaded. Those efforts should start with understanding the evolvutional history of the one and only object we know with any degree of certainty that is capable of generating consciousness--the human brain.