Mind Over Matter, Matter Over Mind?


OK. I thought so.

But aren't mental processes experientially and referentially driven?

I think so. In which case, any claim to physical processes - inputs we recieve from our external environment - that we are exposed to occuring outside the realm of our "experiences" is meaningless.

And even if one were isolated from the environment, like in solitary confinement, they could still referentially synthesize mental state ... stored stimuli (memory) that was once physical and process them to (mental) thought.

Associationism and it's contingent laws are all experiential nd referential by definition.


-------------------------------

P1013014-1.jpg
 
OK. I thought so.

But aren't mental processes experientially and referentially driven?

I think so. In which case, any claim to physical processes - inputs we recieve from our external environment - that we are exposed to occuring outside the realm of our "experiences" is meaningless.

And even if one were isolated from the environment, like in solitary confinement, they could still referentially synthesize mental state ... stored stimuli (memory) that was once physical and process them to (mental) thought.

Associationism and it's contingent laws are all experiential nd referential by definition.


Of course it is, doesn't make them invalid though. Just as this thread and all of the views in it are subjective and speculative. In one sense it doesn't matter what a person believes because in the end it can't be proven scientifically. In another sense, and perhaps the most important, is how a single person views him/herself,their surroundings and how they relate to it. Which brings up an interesting question in my mind.

If you and Andeyhollawho views are so diametrically opposed then how do you exist in his reality and how does he exist in yours?
 
Of course it is, doesn't make them invalid though. Just as this thread and all of the views in it are subjective and speculative. In one sense it doesn't matter what a person believes because in the end it can't be proven scientifically. In another sense, and perhaps the most important, is how a single person views him/herself,their surroundings and how they relate to it. Which brings up an interesting question in my mind.

If you and Andeyhollawho views are so diametrically opposed then how do you exist in his reality and how does he exist in yours?

If you put it that way, everything is subjective. Which actually fits into a defined philosophical position.

You don't PROOVE anything using science. A popular misconception.
You falsify, applying scientific methodology.

You alluded to parsimony somewhere in this thread.
Using the simple rules of physics and mathematics (Occam's Razor) and metaphysics, you can describe reality in terms that are CONSISTENT with observation.

That's the ONLY burden of science. Nothing more.

It seems premature to claim that science doesn't work in this respect. This is the classic logical positivist/social constructed view of science.

And before you get tempted to invoke the "subjectivity" of quantum mechanics making nothing certain, be aware that it's as weird a theory as it is, classical physics, which the human brain is more adapted to comprehend, is derived from it.


And it DOES matter what a person believes in. The plurality in beliefs of mankind is like the proverbial double edged sword. The source of our underlying dynamic unity as well as the all the chaos and bullshit and social strife in the world today. I'm obviously not the first one to realize this. Some of the most influencial scientist and philosophers realized this.

So yeah, I refuse to accept this false notion of it doesn't matter.

They say knowlegde is power. By knowing our true nature, we realise that we're one with and of nature, of the ecology of life on earth as part of a larger universal ecosystem that includes ALL matter.

Don't mean to be preachy n shit, just saying.

Recall that ven diagram of knowlege residing within the intersecting spheres of truths and beliefs? correspondence and coherence theories of truth?



Actually, my views are not DIAMETRICALLY opposed to Andeys.
I'm still trying to understand some of what he's saying, though I mighthave an idea.

As for your question regarding sharing a common reality with opposing views ... was that rhetorical? :confused:

Like I said, paradoxically, it unites as well as divides. There's ONE truth.
There are probably multiple ways to access it. Or deviate from it.



--------------------------------

P1013014-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
By "world" I'm gonna assume you mean universe or observable universe.

Finite in what sense?

Ok I'll bite. I mean world. Earth. Men can dream of other worlds and planets and stuff. We can see pictures of them and we can send spacecraft there to observe it but we don't interact with it. It's still an idea in most peoples mind so I mean Earth.

Again, here i'm gonna assume you mean universe? ... or this doesn't make sense to me.

If you do mean universe ... then we're not really on the same page regarding this ...with respect to what my notion of what the universe is and our relationship to it.

Everything we create is of this Earth. Again we don't create shit made out of moon rocks. We don't have alien technology. We are defined by what we have and what we experience. And we experience Earth exclusively.


OK. Yeah. I'm definitely NOT on the same page with you here)"].

Aight what I am saying to you is everything that is created by MAN is created from the Earth. True? Do we make Martian space craft? Again there are other worlds out there but we don't experience them. We idealize what the atmosphere must be like and we can scientifically calculate what thing must be like and call it science! :lol: That shit ain't science it's random conjecture at best. :smh:


Nope.
This might be your OPINION and I respect that. But I believe it to be wrong.

The concept of color is PERCEPTUAL. Humans PERCEIVE color aesthetically.

Even though the visual receptors in your eye have evolved to discriminate different wave lengths of light - in other words color (basically the only reason we're able to see in color and not black and white is because of this) and intensity - in other words, hue - and the nervous system wirings to you brain process these signals electrochemically ... the output (what your mind "sees") doesn't not necessarily have to be objective. It can be abstract.
This isn't just my lose conjecture or personal opinion. There's scientific foundation.

You just chose to ignore what I said about grapheme synethesia? :dunno::confused:

And since you brought up the notion of finitude, I hope you're aware that the distinct colors that make up the spectrum are essentially infinite. Let's even assume that our brains process information algorithmically (like a computer) then I'd imagine the math involved here with an infinite set of vectors would involve some serious abstraction in some Hilbert space.

I'm no Jon Von Neuman but shit doesn't seem as simple as ROYGBIV to me.

I didn't ignore you theory. You pretty much just railroaded mine though! :lol: But it's all good. Here's an old school reference for you. The great philosopher Luther Vandross once said that "A chair is still a chair. Even if no one is sitting there!" :lol:

What you are saying is true from a human mind perspective. I am talking from a realism perspective. We as humans may have an infinite perceptive reference of what colors we see everyday but if 300 people can look at an apple and call it all shades of red that shit is still one color. And nature decided what color it would be from jump. :dunno:

What I am saying is no one is going to come up with a color that is outside of our frame of reference. ROYGBIV is a great example. There is always "grey area" with the human mind and how it perceives things. Your right there are infinite amounts of colors we can come up with if we put our mind to it but in reality a chair is still a chair and a color is still a color no matter who is observing it. And our frame of reference is determined by this world.

In other words what would humans do if we went to Pluto 200 years from not and a color came up that we can't define? Not a shade of any thing ROYGBIV or just unexplainable. We can't wrap our head around that concept. We go to other worlds like Jupiter and send probes and say nothing can live there because the atmosphere is 95% nitrogen. Who's to say life on that planet doesn't THRIVE off nitrogen (not really but making a point). But our frame of reference tells us the only way to have life is our way. Same thing with everything on this planet.

You kind of lost me there for a second but then I reset the GPS navigation and got back on track ... I think. LOL.

OK. So it seems to me that you view the world as a purely physical entity that has lots of information in it and that's inhabitantated by curious humans.

And the only way we can interact with it is physically based ONLY on what we know at the moment?

If so, it appears that you suscribe to more to a hard form of realism ... like physicalism. Talking about everything is physical. Nothing is mental, metaphysical or outside of the physiological stimuli we respond to.

Am I right?

OK, remember the question I asked you about how physical is your computer being that it's 99.999999999% empty space?

Whould that be 0.000000001% ?


You are almost there. So you say the world is part mental? How can it be part mental? Because your mental capacity and the way you interact with things can not affect another humans mental without something physical being done to it.

Aight I paint a painting and I show it to a room of 100. You have 100 mental processes going on about that same picture. Even if I painted the perfect picture and showed you exactly what I wanted you to see 100 people will come out with 100 opinions. Then someone will try to convince someone else.

See what you are saying is that this process is part of the world. I am saying it's not. It's part of you. How you deal with it and how you process things. In reality there is only one picture and that shit is FINITE! We put the infinite shit onto everything because our mind is constantly looking for answers in finite shit.

This Earth is finite to us. We can include the universe if it makes it easier but in reality we don't interact with the universe. The universe interacts with the Earth and that is our frame of reference.

So since it is finite it is only US who don't have the answers. As far as the computer being 99.99% empty. Do you interact with that space? Can you do anything about that space? If the computer is that much empty space then the world itself is even smaller in terms of physical space. But again can you interact with it? Cause if you can it is physical. We just make it in our mind that nothing is there. Protons, electrons and neutrons are all around us everyday. That space is not "empty" it's just unusable by us humans. Until we wonder enough and make use out of it. :dunno:
 
If you put it that way, everything is subjective. Which actually fits into a defined philosophical position.

I didn't say everything is subjective. I said the viewpoints posted here are subjective and can't be proven...or falsified if that's the way you want to put it.

You don't PROOVE anything using science. A popular misconception.
You falsify, applying scientific methodology.

OK......you're right

You alluded to parsimony somewhere in this thread.
Using the simple rules of physics and mathematics (Occam's Razor) and metaphysics, you can describe reality in terms that are CONSISTENT with observation.

That's the ONLY burden of science. Nothing more.

I put the razor away believing you wanted to go in bruh. Occams razor is generally used to eliminate crazy,complex hypothesis assuring that predictions and explanations are true to what is known by science throughobservable and repeatable facts. I can't recall if it mentions hypothesis having to be consistent with observation.

It seems premature to claim that science doesn't work in this respect. This is the classic logical positivist/social constructed view of science.

classic,logical,positive and social......:cool: Thanks for the compliments bruh. I'll wear these badges with honor.

And before you get tempted to invoke the "subjectivity" of quantum mechanics making nothing certain, be aware that it's as weird a theory as it is, classical physics, which the human brain is more adapted to comprehend, is derived from it.

haven't said a word about it. Enlighten us


And it DOES matter what a person believes in. The plurality in beliefs of mankind is like the proverbial double edged sword. The source of our underlying dynamic unity as well as the all the chaos and bullshit and social strife in the world today. I'm obviously not the first one to realize this. Some of the most influencial scientist and philosophers realized this.

So yeah, I refuse to accept this false notion of it doesn't matter.

I agree it matters. What I was getting at is a person reality/viewpoint is probably more important to him/her than any hypothesis that would attempt to "falsify" their reality.

They say knowlegde is power. By knowing our true nature, we realise that we're one with and of nature, of the ecology of life on earth as part of a larger universal ecosystem that includes ALL matter.

Don't mean to be preachy n shit, just saying.

Preach on Reverend

Recall that ven diagram of knowlege residing within the intersecting spheres of truths and beliefs? correspondence and coherence theories of truth?

Venn diagragms-------->:yawn:------>:sleep: yea I know what you talkingabout. It's been a long time bruh let me brush up on it.



Actually, my views are not DIAMETRICALLY opposed to Andeys.
I'm still trying to understand some of what he's saying, though I mighthave an idea.

As for your question regarding sharing a common reality with opposing views ... was that rhetorical? :confused:

rhetorical,subjective,speculative,crazy,weird etc.
Again, thought you wanted to go "in". Let my question take you to wherever your "mind" perceives it to go.

Like I said, paradoxically, it unites as well as divides. There's ONE truth.
There are probably multiple ways to access it. Or deviate from it.


Prove it :D
 
Ok I'll bite. I mean world. Earth. Men can dream of other worlds and planets and stuff. We can see pictures of them and we can send spacecraft there to observe it but we don't interact with it. It's still an idea in most peoples mind so I mean Earth.

Da fuck you mean we don't interact with it? So the pictures from the Hubble telescope is a dream? Landing on the moon/mars and extracting shit is a hallucination? :confused:


Everything we create is of this Earth. Again we don't create shit made out of moon rocks. We don't have alien technology. We are defined by what we have and what we experience. And we experience Earth exclusively.

And what's the source of the energy that fuels life on earth? The life that makes it possible for us to make shit? :confused:

Is the sun on earth now? :confused:





Aight what I am saying to you is everything that is created by MAN is created from the Earth. True? Do we make Martian space craft? Again there are other worlds out there but we don't experience them. We idealize what the atmosphere must be like and we can scientifically calculate what thing must be like and call it science! :lol: That shit ain't science it's random conjecture at best. :smh:

Nah son. It's not random conjecture. Go look up the simplest definition of scientific method. Dose science provide absolute truths? nah, that's not it's role - it's fundamentally statistical. Science allows for predictions based on observation and emperical study. Good science makes very accurate reproducible predictions.

So yeah, "random conjecture" didn't produce all the technology you enjoy today.



I didn't ignore you theory. You pretty much just railroaded mine though! :lol: But it's all good. Here's an old school reference for you. The great philosopher Luther Vandross once said that "A chair is still a chair. Even if no one is sitting there!" :lol:

How did i railroad yours? :confused:

I commented on what YOU said. You're just coming up with shit without backing it up. I can't even address your logic because the fucking premise of your argument is off. :lol:

I don't think you have an answer though. And it looks like you're trying to sneak your way out of this one right here so I'll leave it alone. :lol:



What you are saying is true from a human mind perspective. I am talking from a realism perspective. We as humans may have an infinite perceptive reference of what colors we see everyday but if 300 people can look at an apple and call it all shades of red that shit is still one color. And nature decided what color it would be from jump. :dunno:

WTF are you even saying? Nature decides what color it is? WTF does that even mean? :confused:

And how do YOU know this shit by the way? :lol:

OK, so you're suggesting that there's only ABSOLUTE truths, right?
The world is as it is independently of what humans make it to be?

That there are NO experiences. Basically that's what you're saying. Not railroading your shit, this is what you're saying.

Ight, check out the flawed "nature" (pun intended LOL) of your own argument.

You talk about we can only manipulate and interact with things of this world, right?
OK, so how the fuck do we interact with them in a non-experiential way?

You're saying that our experiences are only restricted to a finite closed/isolated world?

Again, I hope you're aware that we get all our energy essentially from the sun which if definitely not in Wyoming.

You say we can "dream" of stuff but shit still is what it is. "A chair is still a chair" n shit.

So you believe that we can dream? How the fuck do you non-mentally dream? :confused:

See what i'm saying. You're argument is all convoluted n shit.

A classic epistemological problem with realism:
How can we get knowledge of a MIND-INDEPENDENT world?

Explain that shit OBJECTIVELY. After all, that's what realism demands, right?

Here's another semantic problem:
How can you connect your beliefs to the MIND-INDEPENDENT states of affairs they (allegedly) represent?

Basically, how can you BELIEVE shit without envoking the mind?

Hmmm??

"Think" about it. (pun intended ...:lol:)





What I am saying is no one is going to come up with a color that is outside of our frame of reference. ROYGBIV is a great example. There is always "grey area" with the human mind and how it perceives things. Your right there are infinite amounts of colors we can come up with if we put our mind to it but in reality a chair is still a chair and a color is still a color no matter who is observing it. And our frame of reference is determined by this world.

In other words what would humans do if we went to Pluto 200 years from not and a color came up that we can't define? Not a shade of any thing ROYGBIV or just unexplainable. We can't wrap our head around that concept.

Sure we can. We just come up with another color convention. We've been doing this shit ever since we existed..



We go to other worlds like Jupiter and send probes and say nothing can live there because the atmosphere is 95% nitrogen. Who's to say life on that planet doesn't THRIVE off nitrogen (not really but making a point). But our frame of reference tells us the only way to have life is our way. Same thing with everything on this planet.

Ah.
Physical scientists (cosmologist) call this the Anthropic Principle. That the world (universe) was very delicately designed or naturally evolved to accomodate life. Life as we know it. Carbon based, etc. etc.

Social scientists call this the anthropocentric view of the universe. That shit is all about us.

You're right. Most people think this way, and some scientists let this view influence how they do science. I see it all the time. But certainly not all scientists and not all science. So yeah, we have the ability to think outside the box. We've been doing it for ages.
We don't have a fixed/restricted frame of reference by any means.
Like i'v been saying from jump, we have FREE WILL.






You are almost there. So you say the world is part mental? How can it be part mental? Because your mental capacity and the way you interact with things can not affect another humans mental without something physical being done to it.

Nope. I never said the world is PART mental.
My philosophy is monism. The world/universe is equally and reducibly mental and physical.
I think I mentioned my belief somewhere in this thread responding to BigUnc:


I cosign the Bohmian holonomic model of the brain, the holistic model of the universe and the wave-structure of matter (the dynamic unity of reality)

Intelligence "resides" in and is "one with" the mind and the physical.




Aight I paint a painting and I show it to a room of 100. You have 100 mental processes going on about that same picture. Even if I painted the perfect picture and showed you exactly what I wanted you to see 100 people will come out with 100 opinions. Then someone will try to convince someone else.

See what you are saying is that this process is part of the world. I am saying it's not. It's part of you. How you deal with it and how you process things. In reality there is only one picture and that shit is FINITE! We put the infinite shit onto everything because our mind is constantly looking for answers in finite shit.

Hmm. The the mind-boggling concept of finity and infinity
OK. Since you keep bringing it up, let me ask you three questions:

1) What's the SMALLEST number between 0 and 1?

2) What's the LARGEST number of all numbers?

3) Of your two answers, which one is bigger?


Here's another question:

Is it possible to fit an INFINITE number of things or have an INFINITE number of operations in a FINITE (closed) space? Like, say, a circle or a sphere?

I'll wait for your answer.





This Earth is finite to us. We can include the universe if it makes it easier but in reality we don't interact with the universe. The universe interacts with the Earth and that is our frame of reference.

Andey, you said previously that everything we make is of there earth and returns to the earth. Right? (I agree)

Now you're saying the universe only interacts with the earth and we don't interact with the universe.

But if we are OF the earth, just like you implied, then how don't we interact with the universe again? ... :confused:

WTF man? :lol:

j/k lol. But you see how the logic is contradictory right?





So since it is finite it is only US who don't have the answers. As far as the computer being 99.99% empty. Do you interact with that space? Can you do anything about that space?
If the computer is that much empty space then the world itself is even smaller in terms of physical space. But again can you interact with it? Cause if you can it is physical. We just make it in our mind that nothing is there. Protons, electrons and neutrons are all around us everyday. That space is not "empty" it's just unusable by us humans. Until we wonder enough and make use out of it. :dunno:

Hmmm.

When I said empty, it was in reference to the elementary particles that make up the "substance" of the object ... that they are physical.

I was assuming that this is the substance that you implied by saying physical.

This is the basis of the standard model of particle physics which describes matter as being made up of discrete entities which interact and communicate through forces, through the "empty" space.

(For the record I don't c/s this model because it's incomplete and an illusion. that's another story though.)


So Andey, you actually make a very good point about our interaction with the empty space being physical because we "feel" it.

We "feel" it because every thing is connected and communicates. The physiological response to stimuli in your nervous system is comprised of the same electrons that make up atoms, molecules, neurons nerves etc that interact the same way the sun interacts with the earth and planet X with planet Y, galaxies, solarsystems etc.

I believe these are the same forces that cause PHYSICAL brain states are the same forces from which NON-PHYSICAL conscious states emerge.

One.


---------------------------

P1013014-1.jpg
 
Sean I'm still working through "the Self Aware Universe" and that book makes me feel soooo blonde sometimes but I'm digging it. The authors explanation of quantum theory is pretty good. I still have to go through and read some of these thought provoking posts before I can comment but great thread!
 


I didn't say everything is subjective. I said the viewpoints posted here are subjective and can't be proven...or falsified if that's the way you want to put it.

You're right. They can't be proven. And that's was not my intention when i started the thread. Just wanted to have a cool discussion andexercise our brains. :D

But hey, they can be falsified through exposing inconsistencies.
Paradoxes typically emerge when shit is inconsistent. Which is typical with complicated convoluted shit. I try and keep occam's razor under my tongue at all times. It protects me and keeps me focused. LOL.

But I think it was Einstein that said; "everything should be as simple as possible ... but not simpler." :cool:





I put the razor away believing you wanted to go in bruh. Occams razor is generally used to eliminate crazy,complex hypothesis assuring that predictions and explanations are true to what is known by science throughobservable and repeatable facts. I can't recall if it mentions hypothesis having to be consistent with observation.

We can still go in with the Razor. Slice through shit, Ginsu style.

You're right, Occam's Razor cuts away all complicated propositions and theories leaving the simplest most valid one behind.

IMO, after careful thought, I think monism is left behind. But I'm hoping someone can offer an argument that cuts through that too. I wana learn.

Consistency, scope and "fit" with observables is a requirement for sound hypothesis ... so is simplicity.




classic,logical,positive and social......:cool: Thanks for the compliments bruh. I'll wear these badges with honor.

Anytime. :D:cool:

But yeah, society has constructed this view that science is ultimately a worthless and waste of time.
They've used pens, paper, TV's, computers and iPhones to do this. :D




haven't said a word about it. Enlighten us

Because our knowledge was more primitive back in the day a classical view of the world made sense. Just like geocentrism made more sense than heliocentrism (there were obviously religious and political reasons) or a flat earth vs. a spherical one.

So the notion of the chain of cause-and-effect makes sense to us. Our brains and society have evolved to furnish this intuition.

Enter Quantum Physics. Cognitive dissonance.

But Quantum Physics can be reduced to Classical Physics.

Classical Physics predates Quantum Physics even though Classical Physics is derived from Quantum Physics.

Everything is the same. There's one truth. Just different perceptions of it.





I agree it matters. What I was getting at is a person reality/viewpoint is probably more important to him/her than any hypothesis that would attempt to "falsify" their reality.

True. That's the beauty of personality. It's yours. At least until the they develop the technology of mind reading. LOL.

Even though it's important to them and they could give a fuck what anyone else thinks that doesn't mean that you can't point out inconsistencies and flaws in the philosphy-justification-lifestyle complex.

It's like ideologies and politics. A hard-core wingnut will argue his beliefs till kingdom come but it can be broken down and argued as a bunch of confabulation.

Science only progresses through constant revison, breakdown and build-up of hypothesis.

You familiar with Thomas Kuhn's thesis on the Philosophy of Science?




Venn diagragms-------->:yawn:------>:sleep: yea I know what you talkingabout. It's been a long time bruh let me brush up on it.

Ight.




rhetorical,subjective,speculative,crazy,weird etc.
Again, thought you wanted to go "in". Let my question take you to wherever your "mind" perceives it to go.

Good shit. :yes:




Prove it :D


Proove that there's one truth?

I can't. I don't have to.

I can falsify that there isn't a multiplicity of truths.

Easy.

Society is fucked up because most people think there is.
Nature is not fucked up because it works as one efficiently sustainable unit.

ONE.
 
Sean I'm still working through "the Self Aware Universe" and that book makes me feel soooo blonde sometimes but I'm digging it. The authors explanation of quantum theory is pretty good. I still have to go through and read some of these thought provoking posts before I can comment but great thread!

Amit Goswami's is a gifted science educator. I enjoyed that book. I've read so many other similar themed books.

Right of top I can recommend "The Hidden face of God" by Gerald Shroederer, "God and the New Physics" by Paul Davies, "The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot, "What is Life" by Erwin Schroedinger.

I'm currently reading "Schrodinger's Universe and the Origin of the Natural Laws" by Milo Wolf.
I REALLY REALLY RECOMMEND THIS ONE.

--------------------------

P1013014-1.jpg
 
Aight let me try another route. You are too smart for your own good Sean! :lol:

Let's start with the sun and the universe and earth.

WE do not affect the universe. The universe affects US. The sun for instance is there. Is there anything that WE can do to affect the sun? Have we ever gotten an accurate temp of the sun or do we calculate it? Doesn't matter what you calcualte or what hypothesis you come up with regarding what the sun is or what it does it was here before us and will be here after us.

The moon is the same way. We don't affect the moon it affects us. Sun affects climate and weather and the moon affects tides and the rotation around the sun affects day and night and the reflection affects the phases of the moon. There is not shit that man can do to change that. Ain't shit we can do to affect the positions of the planet. All we can do is observe and come up with theories. And calculate. We can interact all we want with the moon or Mars or whatever but we don't define shit in respect to Martian logic. We define it in terms of Earth.

Let's move to math. What is our math based on? From the calender to the days to the ideas of infinity or non-infinity whatever. MATH IS BASED ON THE EARTH AND HOW THE UNIVERSE AFFECTS THE EARTH! Period. From the first mathematicians down everything is defined by what we have observed on earth. Then we take that and apply it to everything else. Your observable reproducable predictions as you call it. Are based on what? Where was it born from? Your idea about fitting an infinite into a finite circle or sphere. Who decided that was infinite in the first place? And what was it defined from?

Earth maybe? :lol:

What I am telling you is that everything you are quoting and every mathematical equation is defined in terms of Earth. And who gives a fuck about it? Me and you. If a muthafucka showed up tomorrow with a substance that was not of the periodic table and was not definable by science then what do we call that? A miracle? :dunno:
 
Last edited:
This is a might bit off topic but check this link out came across it today.

They say DARPA is heavily researching this technology

http://www.wimp.com/controlgame/

Thanks for sharing this Eye.

Definitely not off topic!

So Andey? What do you think about this?


I think the same thing I have been saying. That science has to catch up to Earth and not the other way around. We are creatures that produce energy. Been proven by science. That energy is vast in comparison to the science we have to comprehend it.

This toy converts the energy produced by the electrical impulses our brain NATURALLY generates to produce mechanical movement. It's not mind over matter. It's an alternative energy source! :dunno:

Your "mind" is not moving it. You are not thinking "Move ball" and it moves. You are hook to a physical machine that reads one thing and does another. We've had that technology since the light bulb! :lol: Just because we just thought of a way to harness it and make it do mechanical movement does not make it amazing. Your mind is wired and sends impulses. That's how we move, breath and think.
 
By the way, thanks for this convo Andey. This is what i'm talking about. I'm learning/refreshing on a lot of stuff in the process.
Good shit. :yes:



Aight let me try another route. You are too smart for your own good Sean! :lol:

Let's start with the sun and the universe and earth.

WE do not affect the universe. The universe affects US. The sun for instance is there. Is there anything that WE can do to affect the sun?

Hm. Right of the top of the dome i'd say no. i don't think so. The sun has so much energy that I don't think even someone with the highest level of mental focus and thats isolated from all the "noise" on earth can match or overcome it enough to affect it physically.



Have we ever gotten an accurate temp of the sun or do we calculate it?

Actually pretty accurate temperature of the surface, corona and core. They check out pretty good with physics and math of other shit in the universe. Plus lots of other physical characteristics of the sun like mass, diameter, surface area, elemental composition etc.

The power of math.




Doesn't matter what you calcualte or what hypothesis you come up with regarding what the sun is or what it does it was here before us and will be here after us.

So?



The moon is the same way. We don't affect the moon it affects us. Sun affects climate and weather and the moon affects tides and the rotation around the sun affects day and night and the reflection affects the phases of the moon. There is not shit that man can do to change that. Ain't shit we can do to affect the positions of the planet. All we can do is observe and come up with theories. And calculate. We can interact all we want with the moon or Mars or whatever but we don't define shit in respect to Martian logic. We define it in terms of Earth.

OK. I see now that you've accepted that we CAN interact with things outside our world.
Good.
Now the question is can we affect their physical states?

Have we been able to do it?
Obviously no. At least i don't think so. we only experience the universe locally from our vantage point on earth or our local space through telescopes, satelites or astronaughts in space.

Is it possible?
I believe so. Yes.
I can explain why I believe this to be true, based on a theory and PHYSICAL observable phenomena that support it. But I'll have to distil it down so I can explain it simply fluently and clearly.
I'll get back to you on that in another post. I don't want to digress.





Let's move to math. What is our math based on? From the calender to the days to the ideas of infinity or non-infinity whatever. MATH IS BASED ON THE EARTH AND HOW THE UNIVERSE AFFECTS THE EARTH! Period.

Nope.
Math is universal.
A simple Google or Wiki search of what math is should clear this misconception up for you




From the first mathematicians down everything is defined by what we have observed on earth. Then we take that and apply it to everything else. Your observable reproducable predictions as you call it. Are based on what? Where was it born from? Your idea about fitting an infinite into a finite circle or sphere. Who decided that was infinite in the first place? And what was it defined from?Earth maybe? :lol:

:confused:
Andey. :lol: You trying to dodge those questions too?
It was a simple straight forward question. Answer it or just say you don't know.
YOU'RE THE ONE THAT BROUGHT UP FINITUDE!!! :lol:




What I am telling you is that everything you are quoting and every mathematical equation is defined in terms of Earth. And who gives a fuck about it? Me and you. If a muthafucka showed up tomorrow with a substance that was not of the periodic table and was not definable by science then what do we call that? A miracle? :dunno:

^^^^
No offense dude but that's word-salad. A bunch of words mixed together techinally forming a sentence but not making any coherent sense. :lol:

I'm just kidding. But come on.

Something current science can't explain? Then you apply SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY and start defining it. Come on son.

Ight. You know what.

I could tell a surgeon that the best way to operte on the brain is to first pour 7-up on it after you cut it open. As far as i'm concerned. That's my view.

Fuck it.

ONE.




I think the same thing I have been saying. That science has to catch up to Earth and not the other way around. We are creatures that produce energy. Been proven by science. That energy is vast in comparison to the science we have to comprehend it.

OK. I'm sitting here wondering HOW THE FUCK the discussion evolved (in your mind) to Science vs. The Earth? :confused::confused::confused::dunno:


This toy converts the energy produced by the electrical impulses our brain NATURALLY generates to produce mechanical movement. It's not mind over matter. It's an alternative energy source! :dunno:

$5 says you can't unambiguously explain what you mean by NATURALLY.

Alternative energy source. LOL. Good one.



Your "mind" is not moving it. You are not thinking "Move ball" and it moves.

^^^^
See. That's that shit again.:smh: :lol:


You are hook to a physical machine that reads one thing and does another. We've had that technology since the light bulb! :lol: Just because we just thought of a way to harness it and make it do mechanical movement does not make it amazing. Your mind is wired and sends impulses. That's how we move, breath and think.

What's amazing is you completely missing the point.
They're converting electrical energy from a SUBJECTIVE brain to mechanical energy.

A lightbulb switches on and off. Even with light bulbs that you can dim, you can guage the level using an OBJECTIVELY calibrated dial.

How the fuck do you OBJECTIVELY calibrate an emotion (which is personal) like concentration - what they were using to modulate the energy transfer?

WTF.
 
By the way, thanks for this convo Andey. This is what i'm talking about. I'm learning/refreshing on a lot of stuff in the process.
Good shit. :yes:


ONE.

WTF.

Oh yeah good convo. What you have to do is step outside of the textbooks though and what I am saying will make since.

That simple google and wiki search will tell you that as Canibus said "when neanderthals were writing on walls and caves" they were also doing math. Math based on what they observed on earth.

The universal part of it that YOU are talking about is something that WE as humans agreed would be universal. It makes sense to use. If you have 2 apples then everybody describes that as two universally. But simple math is based off of people counting things around them. It was used to build buildings and navigate later. All of that is Earth based. Not theoretically based. Earth based.

The theories in math came about to explain things that could not be regularly observed on Earth. AKA the finite vs. the infinite. That's why I brought it up. The microscopic and the infinite could not be observed back then but we could predict that they would be there. True?

What I am saying versus what you are saying is that I base everything in this world in the same way that a scientist views it. As what can be proven versus what can be imagined. You can imagine anything you want but if you can't prove it it is not true. What you are saying is the unprovable (the processes of the conscious mind) is just as important as the provable (realism). 50/50 right? I don't agree. How do we prove every thing? By the Earth. The Earth is physical and therefore real.

Every scientific method is PHYSICAL and realism. So you are using realism to defend abstract shit. So you are contradicting yourself from jump. That is my point.
 
OK on to the next section. I have not made this into science vs. the earth. You have. I'm saying that science is of the earth and what you are talking about is not pure science but again idealistic conjecture.

What I am saying is that the brain produces electrical charges WITHOUT outside influence. Right? That's what I mean by natural. You do agree that every thought as well as every action, movement, sense...involves an electronic impulse right?

So in other words if you hear a sound there is an electronic impulse that is sent from your brain so you can process that in you mind. When you raise your arm, move your fingers etc. it produces impulse right?

Ok now there are other things that are involuntary that your body controls also. Like breathing for one. Blood flow for another. Which means that even when you are at rest your body is still sending electronic impulses. This has been proved many times over by EEG and MEG.

So what I am saying is that an active brain is a power source. It powers your body period. So you have a power source. You hook a machine up that takes that power source and converts the energy into mechanical energy. That machine has to know WHERE to tap into that power at. So they tell you to concentrated on something. All that does is make an electrical impulse that is already active in your brain MORE active thus producing more electricity.

So it is not the "thinking" that is causing movement. It is the increase in electrical impulse in a region in the brain that is being tapped into by a machine that is moving the ball.
 
Oh yeah good convo. What you have to do is step outside of the textbooks though and what I am saying will make since.

Don't fall for that anti-science hype man. Aint nothing wrong with reading and textbooks if you pick em right. :cool:


That simple google and wiki search will tell you that as Canibus said "when neanderthals were writing on walls and caves" they were also doing math. Math based on what they observed on earth.

Canibus is your source. :hmm:
Dude stop being lazy. Read.





The universal part of it that YOU are talking about is something that WE as humans agreed would be universal. It makes sense to use. If you have 2 apples then everybody describes that as two universally. But simple math is based off of people counting things around them. It was used to build buildings and navigate later. All of that is Earth based. Not theoretically based. Earth based.

Andey. You're just synthesizing a whole bunch of stuff that you think makes intuitive sense. Read. Trust me it works.




The theories in math came about to explain things that could not be regularly observed on Earth. AKA the finite vs. the infinite. That's why I brought it up. The microscopic and the infinite could not be observed back then but we could predict that they would be there. True?

I seriously have no idea what you're talking about right now.
I tried to explain to you that the concept of infinity is bizzare and paradoxical. I tried to demonstrate this with a couple of questions. You dodged answering them for obvious reasons. As long as you don't open your mind up to try and understand something you're gonna be trapped in a cycle of ignorance. Real talk.
The fundamental laws of math and science existed even before our solar system was created.





What I am saying versus what you are saying is that I base everything in this world in the same way that a scientist views it. As what can be proven versus what can be imagined. You can imagine anything you want but if you can't prove it it is not true.

The role of science isn't to proove anything let alone absolute truths.

Science methodologically supports and falsifies hypothesis/theories with empirical evidence using observation and/or experiment. Using mathematics, in a sense, as a universal language.

Make an effort to understand this and trust me you'll get it.





What you are saying is the unprovable (the processes of the conscious mind) is just as important as the provable (realism). 50/50 right? I don't agree. How do we prove every thing? By the Earth. The Earth is physical and therefore real.

NO. That doesn't even come remotely close to what I'm trying to say.
We're obviously not communicating here.

I've said repeatedly in this thread that I suscribe to monism. But i don't think you're paying attention or even want to.





Every scientific method is PHYSICAL and realism. So you are using realism to defend abstract shit. So you are contradicting yourself from jump. That is my point.

I'm using realism to what? Huh? :confused:

How?

Wait. You know what, never mind.

ONE.
 
Monism
nature is fundamentally reducibly composed of the mental and physical.

You keep bringing up that I am not listening to you but you are not listening to me. Your definition in my eyes is false. Nature is composed of PHYSICAL.

I am saying everything we have based the mental off of had a physical beginning. We expand it with the mind but it is based in physical.

You keep telling me to read well you show me a concept of math that was derived not from the physical but strictly from a mental capacity.

Math is about counting and representing what is counted in reproduce-able ways. Period. I was an engineering major. Trust me when I say I had to learn all of this.

Any scientist worth his weight in salt would discount everything you are trying to say unless I am understanding you wrong. Physical scientist...chemist, engineers, physicists, biologist, the list could go on and on would tell you that mental does not translate into anything without a physical basis.

That is why I say I am a realist. I don't deal in ideas. I deal in reproduceable results. Like science does. I understand that it is not always reproduceable. That's what makes it science.
 
Last edited:
OK on to the next section. I have not made this into science vs. the earth. You have. I'm saying that science is of the earth and what you are talking about is not pure science but again idealistic conjecture.

WTF is science versus earth? :confused::confused::confused:





What I am saying is that the brain produces electrical charges WITHOUT outside influence. Right? That's what I mean by natural. You do agree that every thought as well as every action, movement, sense...involves an electronic impulse right?

Yes. I agree. (with the bolded)

But Andey. Our very existence as living organisms wouldn't be possible without "outside influence".

Now I want you to really read what i'm about to type and try and understand. If it doesn't make sense to you then research it or ask questions.


THE SUN (A STAR) WHICH IS OUTSIDE THE EARTH IS THE SOURCE OF ALL THE ENERGY THAT LIFE ON EARTH FEEDS OFF (THROUGH PHOTOSYNTHESIS)

EVERYTHING ... EVERYTHING THAT MAKES UP LIVING AND NON-LIVING THINGS ON EARTH (EVEN ELECTRONS THAT MOVING IN THE BRAIN) ORIGINATED FROM
... you know what, just watch ...




Earth's interaction with energy from things OUTSIDE of it didn't just stop after the earth as we know it now, was formed. It continues.

I can swear somehwhere in this thread you said something about the moon interacting with us? :dunno: Did you just change your mind? Or got lost in your own arguent? :dunno:

Andey. Stop and THINK about the implications of this for a minute.




So in other words if you hear a sound there is an electronic impulse that is sent from your brain so you can process that in you mind. When you raise your arm, move your fingers etc. it produces impulse right?

Ok now there are other things that are involuntary that your body controls also. Like breathing for one. Blood flow for another. Which means that even when you are at rest your body is still sending electronic impulses. This has been proved many times over by EEG and MEG.

So what I am saying is that an active brain is a power source. It powers your body period. So you have a power source. You hook a machine up that takes that power source and converts the energy into mechanical energy. That machine has to know WHERE to tap into that power at. So they tell you to concentrated on something. All that does is make an electrical impulse that is already active in your brain MORE active thus producing more electricity.

OK. PAUSE. Let's stop right here.

NOW we're getting somewhere. This is exactly what I'm talking about.


"... All that does is make an electrical impulse that is already active in your brain MORE active thus producing more electricity."

Let me fix that sentence up a little ...

" ... All that does is make an electrical impulse stored as potential energy in your brain, MORE active thus producing more electricity."

My question is this. What is MORE? Is it a fixed value that's constant regardless of the person that's concentrating?

Can two people concentrate at the same intensity?
If so, what does it mean?
That they're tapping into stored POTENTIAL energy in their brains at the same rate by the same process?
What is the mechanism of this process?

If you know the answers to any of these questions, then PM me your contact information along with your research findings and i'll forward it to the Nobel Prize selection commitee tomorrow. Then you can start making plans to take over the world.



So it is not the "thinking" that is causing movement. It is the increase in electrical impulse in a region in the brain that is being tapped into by a machine that is moving the ball.

I'll be expecting your PM. You're about to be a fucking Trillionaire!! :yes:


ONE.
 
You are going way beyond the scope of what I am saying. I really don't feel like writing a thesis to explain this to you because it is really common knowledge so here we go again...

STOP TRYING TO CONNECT THINGS THAT DON'T MAKE SENSE TO THE ARGUMENT TO MAKE AN ARGUMNET! :lol:

We are talking about mental and physical right. Not sun, moon quasars. I only brought that up to show you that physical shit if it is on this planet or not affects us but we don't have an affect on it. So thank you for proving my point.

Mental Vs. Physical is the argument here. Ideas versus real.

This concept is really simple. Let's take your light bulb for example. Put the light bulb, a power source and a switch. As you turn that switch up the light bulb gets brighter and as you turn it down the light bulb gets dimmer. Let's say this power source is constant to make it hypothetical and avoid another rant! :lol:

What I am saying to you is that every human being is a power source. We generate power just because we live and breath. We ARE STORED POTENTIAL ENERGY just by definition.

Potential energy can be thought of as energy stored within a physical system. It is called potential energy because it has the potential to be converted into other forms of energy, such as kinetic energy, and to do work in the process.

Ok notice the word physical in there. You used potential energy so I will go with it. It is stored in a PHYSICAL system and has the potential to be converted into other forms of energy.

Ok now follow me...

Every process that we do PHYSICALLY is possible because of the energy that is produced by out brain to make it so. The electrical impulses I was talking about. These are measureable.

If you were to sit at rest and just breath and we were to measure your brain wave activity (aka electrical impulses) and we gave it a number we will call it 1. If you were then to move your arm up to a 90 degree angle your brain activity might move breifly to a 1.3 and if you were to hold your arm there it might return to a 1.1 because you are now using muscles. Understand so far...

If you were to then stand up and bend over since you are using more muscles your brain would then read maybe a 2 in terms of power output.

These impulses are CENTERED in certain parts of the brain. In other words they originate at one part of the brain and then difuse to other parts to make this whole symphony of movement work. What scientist have been working on for years is MAPPING the regions of the brain that "fire" when certain activities are done. We have equipment that does that now. EEG and others do this fairly easy.

This part of your brain that is firing is "subconcious". You do not have to "think" arm move to get your arm to move you just do it. Subconcious. The CONCIOUS mind is where the problem has been. If you think "hey that girl is pretty" what part of your mind "fires" when that happens. Mapping that has been harder but it is not impossible.

What you are seeing here is the results of mapping that "trigger" and nothing more. It is still a produced current. This machine just pinpoints it and turns it into useable energy.
 
You are going way beyond the scope of what I am saying. I really don't feel like writing a thesis to explain this to you because it is really common knowledge so here we go again...

STOP TRYING TO CONNECT THINGS THAT DON'T MAKE SENSE TO THE ARGUMENT TO MAKE AN ARGUMNET! :lol:

We are talking about mental and physical right. Not sun, moon quasars. I only brought that up to show you that physical shit if it is on this planet or not affects us but we don't have an affect on it. So thank you for proving my point.

Mental Vs. Physical is the argument here. Ideas versus real.

This concept is really simple. Let's take your light bulb for example. Put the light bulb, a power source and a switch. As you turn that switch up the light bulb gets brighter and as you turn it down the light bulb gets dimmer. Let's say this power source is constant to make it hypothetical and avoid another rant! :lol:

What I am saying to you is that every human being is a power source. We generate power just because we live and breath. We ARE STORED POTENTIAL ENERGY just by definition.



Ok notice the word physical in there. You used potential energy so I will go with it. It is stored in a PHYSICAL system and has the potential to be converted into other forms of energy.

Ok now follow me...

Every process that we do PHYSICALLY is possible because of the energy that is produced by out brain to make it so. The electrical impulses I was talking about. These are measureable.

If you were to sit at rest and just breath and we were to measure your brain wave activity (aka electrical impulses) and we gave it a number we will call it 1. If you were then to move your arm up to a 90 degree angle your brain activity might move breifly to a 1.3 and if you were to hold your arm there it might return to a 1.1 because you are now using muscles. Understand so far...

If you were to then stand up and bend over since you are using more muscles your brain would then read maybe a 2 in terms of power output.


And you know this how? :confused:
If a different person does the same thing you get the same magic numbers yu just cooked up? :confused:
Any references to support this? :confused:
Or you're just guessing because it makes sense to you? :confused:



These impulses are CENTERED in certain parts of the brain. In other words they originate at one part of the brain and then difuse to other parts to make this whole symphony of movement work. What scientist have been working on for years is MAPPING the regions of the brain that "fire" when certain activities are done. We have equipment that does that now. EEG and others do this fairly easy.

This part of your brain that is firing is "subconcious". You do not have to "think" arm move to get your arm to move you just do it. Subconcious. The CONCIOUS mind is where the problem has been. If you think "hey that girl is pretty" what part of your mind "fires" when that happens. Mapping that has been harder but it is not impossible.

:smh: ... ignorance is bliss.

Moving your hand is a subconscious process? :smh:

So when the subjects in the experiment concentrated in order to move the fan ... what were they doingon? Conscious or your so-called subconscious?
Or wait. Oh shit!! Maybe they weren't even thinking!!! Ooooooohhh.... :rolleyes::smh:



What you are seeing here is the results of mapping that "trigger" and nothing more. It is still a produced current. This machine just pinpoints it and turns it into useable energy.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will be or never be solved by science."
-Charles Darwin

To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.
- Amos Bronson Alcott


Not trying to dis' or anything. Just saying. But hey. Do you.

I think it's safe to say that this discussion has reached thermodynamic equillibrium of redundance.

Believe what you believe dude.
 
Last edited:
I'll say it again


If you and Andeyhollawho views are so diametrically opposed then how do you exist in his reality and how does he exist in yours?


When matter and anti-matter come into contact they destroy each other releasing energy. Both of you are still here in this time and space. Why?
 
will read later.

<a href="http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/02/09/funny-pictures-always-disproving-ma-theorem/"><img src="http://icanhascheezburger.wordpress.com/files/2008/02/funny-pictures-anti-gravity-cat-chalkboard.jpg" style="word-spacing:469599px;font-size:469599px;" alt="Humorous Pictures" /></a><br />see more <a href="http://icanhascheezburger.com">Lolcats and funny pictures</a>
 
I'll say it again


When matter and anti-matter come into contact they destroy each other releasing energy. Both of you are still here in this time and space. Why?

Oh yeah?

And why is the universe almost completely composed of matter?

Yeah, symmetry breaking is a bish huh.


-----------------------------

th_P1013014-1.jpg
 
will read later.

<a href="http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/02/09/funny-pictures-always-disproving-ma-theorem/"><img src="http://icanhascheezburger.wordpress.com/files/2008/02/funny-pictures-anti-gravity-cat-chalkboard.jpg" style="word-spacing:469599px;font-size:469599px;" alt="Humorous Pictures" /></a><br />see more <a href="http://icanhascheezburger.com">Lolcats and funny pictures</a>

Please do.

------------------------------------

th_P1013014-1.jpg
 
Oh yeah?

And why is the universe almost completely composed of matter?

Yeah, symmetry breaking is a bish huh.


From what I understand the theory is or a theory is that soon after the big bang matter and anti matter came into contact with each other. Lucky us according to the theory is there was moree matter than anti matter therefore the universe is made up of mostly matter. Just a theory though.
 
From what I understand the theory is or a theory is that soon after the big bang matter and anti matter came into contact with each other. Lucky us according to the theory is there was moree matter than anti matter therefore the universe is made up of mostly matter. Just a theory though.

LOL. Well there you have it.

So I guess there are 2 scenarios:

1) The theory of symmetry breaking is wrong and there was never asymmetry of matter and anti-matter.

2) Matter always existed and there was never anti-matter.


Now, what were you sayng again about me and Andey?
 
We have entered into a Golden Age of extraordinary discovery in uncovering the mysteries of the most mysterious, complex object in the universe -- the electric human brain. Scientists have uncovered more information about the human brain in the past 15 years, than in all centuries combined.

Most people aren't consciously aware of the incredible capacity of their own brains. A human brain has more cells then the known universe has stars! As astronomers use high power telescopes to peer out into new worlds, so do neuroscientists peer into the neuron charged electric human brain, using the latest technology available. Yet, not even the technology we possess today meets the demands the most complex object in the universe poses in order for us to explore it to its fullest capacity.



Brain Scans show neural activity

For instance, we now know that more connections among the brain's estimated hundred billion neurons mean a better functioning brain. It is understanding how this electrochemical communication process takes place in our brains that can lead to innovative products and methods to enhance our brain's development.

For instance, we now know that fostering the growth of dendrites, increases the mass within the brain. We have also most recently learned the important role neurotransmitters play in good nutritional health.

Functioning much like a uniquely designed electric conduit, the brain actually encodes stimuli from the body as nerve impulses. When the electrical impulses reach the brain, they trigger the release of messenger chemicals, such as glutamate, which in turn induce electrical impulses as they travel from one neuron to another.

How Neuron's Communicate with Each Other

A single neuron connects to thousands of other neurons through points of microscopic gaps separating them, known as synapses. You can think of synapses as a freeway system in which chemical messengers known as neurotransmitters, travel between neurons. While there are about 100 different neurotransmitters, each neuron releases only one or a few different types. After its release, a neurotransmitter crosses the synapse and activates a receptor protein in the outer membrane of the receiving neuron.

This awesome network of neurons underlies our perception of the world. These connections come from inherited growth patterns and in response to outer stimuli, including internal stimuli like imagined sensations. Thus, we now know imagination can play an important role in developing a healthy brain as well.

Neurons & Evolution

Only until recently, neurons were believed to be programmed by genes to perform specific functions in the brain. Recent studies have strongly supported a new theory called Neuronal Plasticity that claims neurons are able to travel great distances from their mother nerve cells, and function based on the surrounding signals given by other neurons. In other words, they are very adaptable, and are not programmed by DNA for specific functions. For example, a paw of a mammal could turn into a wing, but the neurons that interpret sensory signals from the wing, would not need to be reprogrammed to manage the change in the body plan. Neuronal plasticity is a revolutionary discovery as it suggests that this degree of flexibility in the brain could lend itself to further evolution of consciousness, among other things.



Information Derived from:

Quiet Miracles of the Brain, Joel L. Swerdlow,
National Geographic Magazine, (June, 1995)

Neocortical Circuits and their Plasticity, Karel Svaboda, Ph.D.
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, www.cshl.org

A Brain Cell Surprise: Genes Don't Set Function,
Natalie Angier, January, 1992
The Science Times Book of the Brain,
The New York Times, Edited by Nicholas Wade, 1998
 
Although not a "brain scan" as the term is usually used, the EEG, or electroencephalograph, deserves mention as one of the first -- and still very useful -- ways of non-invasively observing human brain activity. An EEG is a recording of electrical signals from the brain made by hooking up electrodes to the subject's scalp. These electrodes pick up electric signals naturally produced by the brain and send them to galvanometers (instruments that detect and measure small electric currents) that are in turn hooked up to pens, under which graph paper moves continuously. The pens trace the signals onto the graph paper.

Although it was known as early as the nineteenth century that living brains have electrical activity, an Austrian psychiatrist named Hans Berger was the first to record this activity in humans, in the late 1920s.

EEGs allow researchers to follow electrical impulses across the surface of the brain and observe changes over split seconds of time. An EEG can show what state a person is in -- asleep, awake, anaesthetized -- because the characteristic patterns of current differ for each of these states. One important use of EEGs has been to show how long it takes the brain to process various stimuli. A major drawback of EEGs, however, is that they cannot show us the structures and anatomy of the brain or really tell us which specific regions of the brain do what.

What you are seeing with that toy is the next level of EEG. Tapping into a region of the brain that if certain activity is done will produce a desired result. This again is not hard to understand.
 
Here's a basic tutorial on how the brain works.

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/brain_basics/know_your_brain.htm

You need to be up on all this shit before we continue this discussion.

And check this out. It explains what I am saying in pretty plain terms. Again our motor movement is done without our conscious knowledge. You do not have to constantly remind yourself to breathe but breathing is controlled by the mind now isn't it? Same thing with motor function. You don't have to consciously think I want my arm to move I need my arm to move now. Your body does it for you in your unconcious mind. I thought every body knew this? :dunno:


The information processing that the brain must perform to initiate a voluntary movement can be divided into three steps. The first step is to select an appropriate response to the current situation, out of a repertoire of possible responses. This response, which corresponds to a particular behavioural objective, is determined in a global, symbolic fashion.

The second step is to plan the movement in physical terms. This step consists in defining the characteristics of the selected response as the sequence of muscle contractions required to carry it out.

The third step is to actually execute the movement. It is in this step that the motor neurons are activated that trigger the observable mechanics of the movement.
Consequently, the control messages issued by the motor cortex are themselves triggered by messages from other cortical areas. The motor cortex also communicates closely with subcortical structures such as the basal ganglia and the cerebellum, through the thalamus, which acts as a relay.

In light of what we now know about the sequence in which the motor areas of the cortex are activated, we can deconstruct the classic sequence "Ready? Set. Go!" in terms of localized activity in the brain.
 
Last edited:
Andey, that must have taken a lot of effort and research to get that ... (or not) and I applaude the effort.

Unfortunately you're not saying shit new.

So you pull up an article that says brain scans show neural activity, neurons communicate with each other etc etc. But what is it saying?

My guess is that you don't understand shit about the claims you made that I was asking you to support.

It's like someone asking you to explain the mechanism of how water evaporates and you post a long ass article about hydrogen, oxygen and rivers.

So? :confused:
 
Andey, that must have taken a lot of effort and research to get that ... (or not) and I applaude the effort.

Unfortunately you're not saying shit new.

So you pull up an article that says brain scans show neural activity, neurons communicate with each other etc etc. But what is it saying?

My guess is that you don't understand shit about the claims you made that I was asking you to support.

It's like someone asking you to explain the mechanism of how water evaporates and you post a long ass article about hydrogen, oxygen and rivers.

So? :confused:

The purpose of that article again if you step out of your own mindset and listen to what I am saying is that the mind has measureable function. The neural activity is MEASUAREABLE! Being that it is measureable and what we are measuring is a PHYSICAL process that means you can turn your potential mechanical energy in your mind into mechanical energy with the correct tools.

That is not a mental process. That is a physical process. :dunno:
 
See what happens when you have no clue what you're talking about but foolish confidence blinds you?


BEFORE...
What you are seeing here is the results of mapping that "trigger" and nothing more. It is still a produced current. This machine just pinpoints it and turns it into useable energy.

AFTER ...
What you are seeing with that toy is the next level of EEG. Tapping into a region of the brain that if certain activity is done will produce a desired result. This again is not hard to understand.


BEFORE ...
What scientist have been working on for years is MAPPING the regions of the brain that "fire" when certain activities are done. We have equipment that does that now. EEG and others do this fairly easy.

AFTER...
One important use of EEGs has been to show how long it takes the brain to process various stimuli. A major drawback of EEGs, however, is that they cannot show us the structures and anatomy of the brain or really tell us which specific regions of the brain do what.


You just ethered your self ... twice. :smh:
 
LOL. Well there you have it.

So I guess there are 2 scenarios:

1) The theory of symmetry breaking is wrong and there was never asymmetry of matter and anti-matter.

2) Matter always existed and there was never anti-matter.


Now, what were you sayng again about me and Andey?



The big bang theory and the quantum theory huh, note both are theories. Since,far as I know, neither have been observed and reproduced then they are false right? Maybe there is something else we haven't encountered physically or thought of mentally or do you refuse to even consider the possibilities?

We live today because of the occurrences of yesterday.

We're looking back in time mentally attempting to figure out shit with physical observations of today so we can move forward into the unknown of tomorrow.:hmm:

man, dis some good shit...want some?:lol:
 
Back
Top