Tres Juicy

Sounds like he's talking crap

conditioning and nerve damage is also a factor

Maybe but it did work for a while.

More than a while mate..... He was good.

Imagine what someone like Derron Brown could accomplish 2000 years ago...

I have to agree, Jesus was real, however insted of devine. I think he had a huge intellect and realised the only way to solve the problems of the day was to re-invent the excisting religion, around himself. In challenging the authorities, he new his death was inevitable and so wove this into the myth he new he was creating. A very great man.

A charismatic cult leader

If space bending causes gravity, would there not be an overwhelming amount of gravity in the universe? Is space not being "bent" around itself to comprise the edge of the universe?

 

The only place I can think of that has an overwhelming amount of gravity would be a "black hole" If that was the case, would our entire universe not be comprised of one massive black hole?

 

How do you account for the existance of light from very distant galaxies? Gravity has the ability to distort light remember?

 

its much more plausible that gravity causes space to bend around it. Gravity is after all, in theory, the most powerful force we know of in existence.

If space bending causes gravity, would there not be an overwhelming amount of gravity in the universe? Is space not being "bent" around itself to comprise the edge of the universe?

I'm not sure about how the edge of the universe works, is anyone?

The only place I can think of that has an overwhelming amount of gravity would be a "black hole" If that was the case, would our entire universe not be comprised of one massive black hole?

Why would there have to be "an overwhelming amount of gravity"?

How do you account for the existance of light from very distant galaxies? Gravity has the ability to distort light remember?

I'm not suggesting that gravity acts any differently than has previously been observed, I'm merely suggesting a different cause. Gravity is is gravity - how does it normally explain this?

its much more plausible that gravity causes space to bend around it. Gravity is after all, in theory, the most powerful force we know of in existence.

The bending of space is caused by matter, a piece of matter (like the earth for instance) removes/destroys the space where it resides, the surrounding space rushes in to fill the void (and is also destroyed) - so gravitational effects are localised to matter. Gravity is a result of matter.

So... What are you trying to prove?

What is the significance of the numbers you've given?

I have read the entire thread and I have no clue as to what's going on...

This would explain why we can't find a force carrier partice for gravity (graviton), because gravity itself is a fictitious force caused by the motion of space

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force

It's impossible to disprove god, any "proof" offered can be dismaissed as the will of said god as a test of faith.

I heard a similar argument when I asked a street preacher to explain dinosaurs...

I never used to lucid dream, but I would have dreams which were lucid/vivid, esp in the morning having half woken up. I watched waking life and looked up lucid dreaming and found it fascinating. I was looking up techniques such as looking in mirrors, at digital clocks, and flicking lightswitches when in that state and when in the real world to make it more likely that you would do it in a dream, as these are things which your mind has trouble making work in dreams. Also just looking at your hands in general.

 

Since I started reading about it and thinking about it a lot, I had a few moments of realising I had a lucid dream and then "zooming" out and waking up. I also have had 2 dreams which became lucid half way through. The first was by far the most interesting, though not my first lucid dream. It was all crazy and basically I got out of a taxi and was questioning why we had to park where we parked and they said because there were no bus stops anywhere else which made me realise I had been on a double-decker bus before so I must be dreaming. Now, there are 2 things most people want to do when they go into a lucid dream: fly, and fuck, so I found the first guy I could wandering around and we did do the flying thing. it was a more interesting if less realistic flight than in my other flying dreams. We could loop-de-loop and al that, but when it came to sex he told me he was in love with someone else, so not wanting to abuse my own mind I decided to let that one slide.

 

My other dream induced dream was after the main part of a dream had just finished which involved dogs and parties, and I was walking across the street and there was a group of guys behind me who were rude to me so I had a go at them, then they asked me if I was a dreamer or not. I pondered and said that depended on whether I was dreaming or not. I became lucid around then. And then they decided that to find out they threatened to rape me and walked towards me, and after 2 attempts I managed to wake myself up. Slapping didn't work. I had to force my eyes. I was convinced for about an hour that they were other lucid dreamers and couldn't go back to sleep. Wasn't too keen on that one!

 

However, using the wake-back-to-bed technique I have been able to self induce a few times. I can quite often, picture my room, or what I can see with my eyes open, almost exactly with them shut. If done in the right conditions you can very easily put yourself in the same state as a waking dream. You can feel what your body is touching, and "see" where you are, but trying to move will just be your brain telling yourself to move. For some people this turns into sleep paralysis, which is the start of many a "ghost-sighting", but for others, they will THINK that they moved, and hopefully be able to dream that they got out of bed. If you are thinking about lucid dreaming in this state then there is a good chance that it will result as a lucid dream. You can use your eye movements to begin with, as lucid dreams are REM so that shouldn't mess it up.

 

However, with self induced you tend to find that whilst the world keeps form better (in dream-induced your brain is busy trying to control both you, others and your surrounding all at once. very fast loading video game!) because its already mostly decided upon, and doesn't take much imagination, being able to change the environment is much harder. Or at least it was for me. First time, I got out of my bed, went to the door, went to open it, and put my hand straight through the handle. By this logic I decided to walk through the wooden door, but I bashed into it, so I ran my hand down my arm, till I felt the door, then across the door to the handle. It didn't last much longer than that and most don't last long at all.

 

I did have one at some point where I was able to morph my body and grow huge and scary, but only once. It's really hard. One word of advice would be that in a dream-induced dream, one sign that might be useful to associate with being a dream that isn't in the top paragraph, is that it is really hard to exert yourself in a dream, which is why flying is often floating and flapping around, and why often if you CAN run, you are more fast-forwarding, unaware of your body. When you are vivid enough in your dream to notice your limbs, running often becomes impossible, and even walking, and you start feeling as if you are walking though thick mud in slow motion. a couple of my early dream-induced dreams that woke me up began with that. Hope that helps. There are a lot of resources online, though you might want to avoid the more "spiritual" ones.

I've been trying out some stuff recently, no fully lucid experiences yet but I do seem to be remembering a lot more dreams and in more detail.

I used to get them quite regularly and gain full control (which is amazing) I'd like to get that ability back if I can

I'm not sure about it being so telling. It seems communication and exchange of ideas with other cultures, plus inheritance of ideas from written documentation and history, combined with a safe environment in which to explore and ponder knowledge frequently at leisure, and the influence of nurture, are factors that determine to what extent genius can develop successfully. It'd be interesting to see what happens if a child were born and raised in a "lost tribe" (100% descended from its members), but with a full library, internet access, modern devices at home, video conferencing and direct interaction with different cultures, and great mentoring.

Most of the people we consider to be genious's didn't have all that stuff...

Yes.

Oh good, I thought I'd gone mental and could not understand simple English...

Which kind of universe would people prefer to live in, one which has freedom to choose (free will) or one that is set and determined? Is it better to find yourself in a universe with free will or a universe with out it?

How would you tell the difference?

Which one are we currently in?

Some people like to have a cup of tea in the morning, others don't

 

I was wondering, what does physics say about having a cup of tea?

That's what I read...

If I wanted to listen to an arsehole, I would have farted...

I think he ment:

 

to Juicy Tres - model a chronology theme the Dynamic has of the globe on a planet proved of changes from Earth the moment of occurrence of with the system Solar,

 

It is much clearer this way.

What?! Is this a joke?

???

Some communication issues here

Not really, there are plenty of good reasons to use the prefix anti...

Anyway, rather than thinking gravity causes space to bend, you could say the bending of space causes gravity

Derek w - I never said *solid* object, I said matter.

Michel123456 - because the space between them is destroyed. Removing the space brings the objects together

This effect is more pronounced closer to the object

Similar to pulling the plug in the bath

I thought a vacuum was created by taking matter out of space. Not space out of space, or space into matter.

Sorry I rushed this post a bit....

I should have said "Anti-Vacuum" or something

Almost the opposite of the Archimedes principle

Hi all,

Just an idea...

Thinking about gravity not as a force but as an effect of motion.

Here's my tentative veiw:

Objects take up the space in which they exist, what if they also "remove" that space?

The effect we see as gravity is actually the space around the object pouring into the vacuum created by the object removing/displacing the space (matter destroys space)

Of course, space is expanding so the anihilated space is not missed

"I don't think I need to elaborate, no."

 

It is simple courtesy to give your reasoning in a discussion such as this

 

So?

Ok, lets ignore common coutesy, if you have a differing view it is customary to explain it for the benefit of the other party - they may well agree with you.

"You expressed an opinion which I found silly."

 

Really? I am given to understand that there are no silly questions, only silly answers...

 

Well, that's not only silly, but ridiculous.

Not really, it's certainly an over statement but questions are important - as I said, questions drive progress and understanding (you left that part out by the way along with the fact that it wasn't an opinion it was a question).

Also, it's not really an opinion, I quite clearly phrased it as a question. What is silly about questioning things?

 

Fair enough, but let's first review something here since you're misrepresenting me. I didn't say that questioning things is silly, so you're now basically strawmanning my position.

 

You asked a question, and replied with an affirmative answer. To paraphrase I said, "Yes, I we can use brains to understand brains and I think it would be silly to assume otherwise." You asked me if I'd care to elaborate (and I said I really didn't want to, but I did anyway), and you said you were unclear about my reasoning. I noted that this implied you had not bothered to put forth much study into the domain about which you are pontificating.

 

To summarize... Even a remedial review of the most basic research in neuroscience and psychology immediately answers your question in the affirmative and supports my response about same.

I'm certainly not misrepresenting or straw-manning you. I am merely pointing out that it is neither "silly" or an opinion.

As for "not bothering to put forth study..." How could any amount of study on my part enlighten me as to your reasoning? When I asked you to elaborate it was out of genuine interest, an attempt to gather information so as to form an opinion. That's natural in any converstion where there may be differing points of view, particularly if one party is undecided on the matter.

I also think that the section I have highlighted red is massively exaggerated.

"Your opinion seems to suggest that you have simply never spent much time studying neuroscience or psychology..."

 

Well, excuse me for not being a neuroscientist...

 

Ok.

This was intended as sarcasm but nevermind...

My Question suggests the possibilty that we have a limited capacity for understanding and that the brain, particularly things like consiousness and the formation of thoughts, may be beyond this capability.

 

I agree we have limited capacities, but it does not follow from this agreed upon limit that things like understanding the formation of thoughts and consciousness is "beyond" them.

I certainly didn't say that it does, again I asked if that may be the case due to the complex nature of the brain/consiousness. It is not fair to cry strawman and then put words in my mouth. Play fair.

Can we ever hope to fully understand consiousness using our consiousness to examine it?

 

Sure, and I think it's silly to assume otherwise. Haven't we already covered this?

We have, sort of.... I wanted to make the distinction between brain and consiousness here to clarify my point. And still no real reasoning as to why you feel this way.

"...and so it seems all big and scary and impossible to understand."

 

I find this a little patronising and expected better responses, particularly from experienced members.

 

So? You should know that I was seeking to cut you some slack with that comment. It's okay not to know something, and pointing to a lack of knowledge is not necessarily patronizing or insulting. It could very well be an objective and true observation, which in this case it was.

While it is true that I do lack knowledge on the subject, the point of the thread was to learn something. A goal that could not be acheived from your "bare bones" response, which is why I asked for your continued input in the form of your reasoning, not a big ask I feel - if you know more about a subject than I do is there any reason why I can't pick your brain? Especially in an environment such as this where you chose to enter the conversation - it's not like I came to your house and pestered you for information, if that were the case feel free to tell me where to go....

Nevermind, you seem to have misconstrued my question.

 

Not at all. Your question was quite clear. I answered it, and answered it clearly. It was the nature of your probing that I found strange, and it is that to which I've been replying since putting forth that affirmative response in my first reply.

Yes, while I have to agree that your answer was very clear, it tells me nothing (other than I am apparently "silly"), and does not add much to the general thread.

I am not saying its impossible, only that there may be a limit to what we can do with the tools available (our brains), and was interested in getting the opinions of the other members.

 

And, I shared my opinion, so what's the problem? I agree there are limits to the abilities of the human brain. I don't agree that one of those limits is the ability to probe and understand the functioning of the brain or to explore the nature of consciousness.

Yes you shared your opinion, but in general you back it up with some reasoning, again this could be common courtesy or just to make things clear for the other parties involved.

"For those who have, however, spent time studying those things, I think it's clear that... Yes, we can use our brains to help understand brains."

 

This is stating the obvious I feel.

Me, too. However, it didn't appear that way at all given your responses.

Again, for someone who was very quick to cry strawman you've only quoted part of what I said....

Again, my question is not so simple as you have made it out to be and I feel that your argument is based on "reductio ad absurdum" to some extent and certainly not a fair reflection of the validity of the original post in which I mention that it may not be articulated in the best way and credit readers with the intelligence to discern my meaning, a stategy which until now has worked well on this forum due to the quality of its members.

 

Your question is, actually, quite simple. We already do use our brains to understand our brains, to probe the nature of consciousness, and to discover the underlying mechanisms of thought generation. Whatever your feelings about me, the members here, or the clarity and precision of your question... The answer to that question is quite plainly, yes... And I personally think it's silly to assume that we cannot use our brains to understand brains... Exactly as I said the first time.

I disagree that it's a simple question to answer. Yes we use our brains to understand our brains (what else would we use?). I would suggest a quick review of the OP - The placement of the word "Fully" is the key here.

My feeling are not the issue, I dont have a problem with you or anyone else. My problem is that without any reason for your comments how do I go about gaining anything from the discussion?

Fair point - I'm not able to put this as clearly as I would like to

 

I think my question is better phrased:

"Can we ever hope to fully understand consiousness using our consiousness to examine it?"

 

Can consiousness understand itself?

 

Yes, why wouldn't it?

So, you think that we are capable of FULLY understanding the brain and consiousness? Can you provide your reasoning for this?

I,m only a freshman in high school, but I have had the idea in the back of my head for a while.

We use one camera to create a two dimensional picture. Now we use two cameras (or two eyes) to create a three dimensional picture.

Does this mean if someone had three eyes, or something like that, could they possibly see in four dimensions?

No, it doesn't work that way, there are insects with hundreds of eyes, they still cant see extra dimensions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension

have a look at the wiki

That's because copper is conductive, not because it's magnetic. Works with aluminum, too. In a pinch, you can use a roll of aluminum foil to demonstrate the effect.

 

However, I don't think this effect can get rid of copper dust.

"That's because copper is conductive, not because it's magnetic."

I wasn't trying to say it was, that would be silly

"However, I don't think this effect can get rid of copper dust."

No I don't either - Just an interesting side note really

A strong neodymium magnet dropped through a copper tube falls at about half speed due to electromagnetic braking and something to do with Lenz's law as I recall

Edit: Sorry if this is considered thread hijacking - I'll stop now

Hmm... let's take a step backwards. Do you mean understanding our own consciousness solely using our own consciousness? Without using any scientific or other acquired external knowledge?

Another good point.

But when you think about it anything we do or create to help us in this task is a product of our brain/consiousness, including scientific/technological aids.

Also, external knowledge will have come from someone elses brain/consiousness and will have similar limitations as our own.

TJ, I think you should tell about the logic, causality or anything which you think prevents brains understanding how it works. General comments about tools doesn't help. Surgeons operate hands using their hands.

 

I understand the intuitive idea which you have explained being the premise of your question. But your question cannot be answered - anyway not in the way that would satisfy you (as we have seen) - if you don't give us more details about the intuitive process. Yes, you asked for that kind of responses but no one else can crawl into your brains and check what you think.

"Surgeons operate hands using their hands."

Surgeons operate their own hands using their brains - surgeons use their hands to operate on other peoples hands

I don't see your point here

"no one else can crawl into your brains and check what you think."

Fair point - I'm not able to put this as clearly as I would like to

I think my question is better phrased:

"Can we ever hope to fully understand consiousness using our consiousness to examine it?"

Can consiousness understand itself?