Is Conciousness only available in Three-Dimensions?

[Olias]

Consciousness and Spacetime are intricately connected, Consciousness is the Gateway of Spacetime awareness. So is Consciousness only available to thought process in three-dimensional space?..and as a direct consequence limit the speed of thinking?

Einstein states that nothing can travel faster than lightspeed.

Can you think faster than the speed of light?..so are the Laws of physics Consious/awareness dependant?

 

[Phi For All]

Consciousness and Spacetime are intricately connected, Consciousness is the Gateway of Spacetime awareness. So is Consciousness only available to thought process in three-dimensional space?

By your own definition, if consciousness is connected to space, then it would be connected to space in all dimensions. If time=space, then time would also be connected to consciousness. Do you believe consciousness is unrelated to the thought process?

..and as a direct consequence limit the speed of thinking?

Interesting. I will think about this...quickly.

Can you think faster than the speed of light?..so are the Laws of physics Consious/awareness dependant?

Perhaps. I've always wondered if the only thing the higher dimensions are for is to give perspective to each other, the third making the first two visible to light (and us), the fourth spatial adding a perspective to the first three, etc. What if one of the higher dimensions allows consciousness to move through any point in the universe, thus making consciousness faster than the speed of light?

 

[felipefas]

Isn't consciousness the result of information gathered by the senses and processed by the brain into something legible based on prior experiences? This would limit consciousness to the time it takes for light bounce of an object and give us a visual perception. Plus the time it takes for the neuron's electrochemical process to deliver the information.

 

[Phi For All]

Isn't consciousness the result of information gathered by the senses and processed by the brain into something legible based on prior experiences? This would limit consciousness to the time it takes for light bounce of an object and give us a visual perception. Plus the time it takes for the neuron's electrochemical process to deliver the information.

So Helen Keller didn't experience consciousness? Or only 3/5 of consciousness?

 

[felipefas]

So Helen Keller didn't experience consciousness? Or only 3/5 of consciousness?

As absurd as it may sound, I have to say "sort of". I have no idea who Hellen Keller is but I am assuming she lacks of some senses (sight and hearing?). Impaired people do develop their remaining senses to a sharp point. Furthermore, some people would argue that they develop their "sixth sense" which enables them to experience something before anyone of us unimpaired do. But if you suddenly lost a sense, it would diminish your state of conciousness by 1/5th.

 

[sol2]

You make up for it in other areas?

 

[felipefas]

You make up for it in other areas?

isn't that the concept of evolution? if a sense is impaired you have to make up for its main function or simply subside.

 

[selfAdjoint]

This thread seems to be wandering.

Helen Keller was born blind and deaf in the early part of the 20th century. Her well-off parents hired one Annie Sullivan to take care of her. Ms. Sullivan worked for years to bring her to some communication with the outside world, seemingly to no effect. Helen learned braile but had no concept of anything outside herself. But one day as she held her hand under that stream of water from a backyard pump, and Sullivan was determinedly signging W-A-T-E-R on her other hand she made the connection. Helen later became a notable writer and celebrity, and her description of this event is one of the most heartening things you will ever read.

The story of Helen Keller and Annie Sullivan was made into a Broadway play, famous in its time, called "The Miracle Worker". It is sad to me that this noble true story has slipped out of the public consciousness.

 

[felipefas]

This thread seems to be wandering.

Helen Keller was born blind and deaf in the early part of the 20th century. Her well-off parents hired one Annie Sullivan to take care of her. Ms. Sullivan worked for years to bring her to some communication with the outside world, seemingly to no effect. Helen learned braile but had no concept of anything outside herself. But one day as she held her hand under that stream of water from a backyard pump, and Sullivan was determinedly signging W-A-T-E-R on her other hand she made the connection. Helen later became a notable writer and celebrity, and her description of this event is one of the most heartening things you will ever read.

The story of Helen Keller and Annie Sullivan was made into a Broadway play, famous in its time, called "The Miracle Worker". It is sad to me that this noble true story has slipped out of the public consciousness.

I guess I sin for not knowing the story. If I am not mistaken, we are referring to conciousness from the beginning. The question was asked wether conciousness is related or not to the thought process. And if conciousness can travel through other dimensions, then is conciousness faster than the speed of light? I guess the question is on that line.

From Helen Keller's example: Isn't conciousness directly related to the perception of the senses and therefore it cannot be attributed external qualities to ourselves?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Helen's autobiography says that she had conscious awareness as early as any other child, but she had no contact, and indeed no concept of an outside world until the water incident, which happened IIRC when she was seven. So to me this is first person evidence that consciousness does NOT depend on the sensory perception of the outside world.

 

[sol2]

isn't that the concept of evolution? if a sense is impaired you have to make up for its main function or simply subside.

Let's consider these sources of sensory data imput and although they appear quite complex, all of a sudden, like a paradigmal model of information gathering, a new level of thought appears, where previous concepts did not exist.

It's sort of like a neurological firing of sorts that multiplies in its diversity( nodal points in constrcution). We might see different then we had seen before. Besides visual context of reality, formation of perceptions internally helps us see the world differently?

In the above case sighted by Olias, might we have looked at the understanding that any thought given to relativity, would have a instantaneous feature of curvature implied. I presented the Monte Carlo Effect, in terms of quantum gravity, and energy considerations. If on such a weak field measure, then what scale would we have applied to something very strong?

The inception here would have considered geometrical understanding that regardless of these differences of strenght, apply the reality of curvature not only in terms of cosmological proportions, but present geometrical models of construction in quantum thought processes?

Speculation of course?

 

[sol2]

BEC Condensates and Soliton wave Productions?

The reason I present this, is a continuation of what might have been reduced from dimenisonal perspectives,to specifics in reality. If we gather such complex areas of information, how would we reduce this to manageable levels for consideration.

A post in sci.physics. strings speaks about the computational aspect of deriving information, and from this the complexity of that information, becomes truly a puzzle if we are garnering from Planck length such visualization that can be computationally derived.

This is a fundamental question, in regards to LIGO and the amount of information that is being gathered. Reduced to imaging that would reveal aspects of the events contained in gravitational information that was recieved.



Thes two separate ideas, help us to focus on the concentrations of the energy. The peak of the bell curve?
http://pupgg.princeton.edu/phys103_scripts/cointoss/histogram.gif

And here in understanding how we might have perceived the orbital in terms of that same energy?

http://www.bcpl.net/~kdrews/mtas/s_orb.gif

Now, in looking at such fuzziness, we start to get a good picture of what is implied geometrically, although we have ascertained the movement to be more so in the areas of these concentrations?

So in looking at this and in hiesenberg's uncertainty pinciple, we now have a way to look at curvature, in a way we didn't before.



http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/stringboard/messages25/52.html

 

[Innexplicable]

Olias,

I thought about this myself many times. I tried to examine the likelyhood of consciousness being on a higher dimension, with at least an attempt to use science as help. However I found that this is an abstract idea which science can not explore, so I turned to pure reason and logic. This is what I've found:

Since consciousness uses perception from the third dimension, than consciousness must infact exist on a higher dimension. (I.E. six squares making a cube)

If thoughts does exist on a higher dimension, than the laws of the 3rd dimension do not apply, meaning thought has unlimited speed; however, the process within physical reality to create thought is bound by the 3rd dimension (electro-chem. messaging between neurons)

If this is so, than the possibilities are unlimited, which may even explain pseudo phenomona like psychokinesis.

My crackpot theory: called the "connective consciousness" theory; it says that all consciousness' are connected, and at this grand intersection, the center of all thought exists. Also, after death ones' consciousness slowly expands and disconnects from itself, to become random info. in this epicenter (called the NAVI, random other connections are the NAVI plane). To get a better idea, make 32 dots in a circle, and connect all possible lines

 

[Innexplicable]

OOPS! Last thing! in an experiment using magnetoencephalography (MEG) which finds the magnetic field made by brain cells ass they light up. It was found that a thought can be made in less than .04 seconds, and that using O15 (an unstable isotope of oxygen that has the half life of 2 minutes) in the bloodstream they found that it takes .5-2 seconds for blood to be trransfered to these brain cells.

 

[felipefas]

Helen's autobiography says that she had conscious awareness as early as any other child, but she had no contact, and indeed no concept of an outside world until the water incident, which happened IIRC when she was seven. So to me this is first person evidence that consciousness does NOT depend on the sensory perception of the outside world.

She probably didn't know what running water meant. (I'm sure she took showers and drank it). She probably wondered what the smell of the fresh cut grass or of the carbon monoxide outside her window meant. Maybe this was due to her parents fear of bringing her outside. She probably wasn't very curious because at 7 you do what your parents do. But I can only think that during this time, there was a world created inside her head with tastes and smells and how hard or soft or big or small something is.

 

[felipefas]

"Since consciousness uses perception from the third dimension, than consciousness must infact exist on a higher dimension. (I.E. six squares making a cube)

If thoughts does exist on a higher dimension, than the laws of the 3rd dimension do not apply, meaning thought has unlimited speed; however, the process within physical reality to create thought is bound by the 3rd dimension (electro-chem. messaging between neurons)

There is another thread which I started regarding the question Do We See in Two Dimensions? Some people have collaborated on this discussion and the general assumption is that we see at most in 2 1/2 dimensions. This because we only see the reflection of the photons on the two dimensional surface of any object. To see in three dimensions we would have to be able to see throught (the dept dimension) an object. Just think of the following: Is there any scene you can imagine in your head or dream that cannot be represented on a two dimensional surface? a mirror or a painting (assuming a painting having no depth)

And the speed to recreate this thoughts or dreams is limited to the time it takes to recall those memories.

 

[Innexplicable]

The speed to recall the memories, is at a minimum, .04 seconds, and as to the reply, we only see in 2 dimensions, but we think in more than 3 dimensions, so that the image we build in our minds is on a higher dimension than the actual experience. Also, since we can not experience something truly at the time it occurs, then we cannot in effect, truly see anything with depth in 2 dimensions since all that is left is the memory of that moment. Therefore, there is no image with "depth" that I can imagine in 2 dimensions.

P.S. try thinking consciously in 4 dimensions...then stop. Why doesn't it work? we already intereperate the 3D world in more than 3d, so to try and intereperate 4D would require more than 4D perception of reality. MEaning that we would have to live in 4D to think about it...got it? (we always have to think ahead of the curve)

 

[Rhizomorph]

Consciousness arrises from neural activity. Neurons exists in 3-space. Activity requires the passage of time. Counsciousness, therefore, exists in 4 dimensions - 3 of space and 1 of time.

 

[Olias]

Consciousness arrises from neural activity. Neurons exists in 3-space. Activity requires the passage of time. Counsciousness, therefore, exists in 4 dimensions - 3 of space and 1 of time.

So does this mean that Quantum Mechanics is really an "un-conscious" theory?

This may exlpain why most of the QM ideas are based on methods that are counter-intuitive, or born from a sort of 'Un-Conscious' line of thought.

Reality it seems is really in the mind of the beholder.

I am in no way stating that to understand QM, QCD or Stringtheory you have to be unconscious!

But one can ask if:Relativity is a consciousness based theory defined with strict Laws and observations, and Quantum Theory is an Unconsciousness based theory, where anything goes and random thought could be the fundamental concept?

 

[sol2]

How would you marry concepts like, "curvature parameters," to consciousness?

http://http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/gifs/st101.gif

What if we play around with the form of the Minkowski metric? It turns out that if the spacetime metric is arranged in the right manner, we can get something called spacetime curvature. And that is what the General Theory of Relativity is all about.

The deflection angle df tells us how far away from a straight line the path of the light pulse in question was deflected by the Sun. The deflection angle is by definition zero when there is no gravity. We need to compare the deflection angles calculated using the Newtonian and relativistic models for gravity and spacetime.

http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/greltop.html

So by taking this, and moving to a dynamical universe( brane world), we assume paradigmals models for consideration, and learn to see how events are very dynamical in the spacetime reality. How would you explain then hyperspace events taking place in a world above in the hyperspace dynamics? Remeber Edgar Mitchell's view of the planet?

Some might see the action of the universe, and some, issues in quantum gravity, and quantum geometry.

The elements which form their bases and starting-point are not hypothetically constructed but empirically discovered ones, general characteristics of natural processes, principles that give rise to mathematically formulated criteria which these separate processes or the theoretical representations of them have to satisfy. Thus the science of thermodynamics seeks by analytical means to deduce necessary conditions, which separate events have to satisfy, from the universally experienced fact that perpetual motion is impossible. The advantages of the constructive theory are completeness, adaptability, and clearness, those of the principle theory are logical perfection and security of the foundations. The theory of relativity belongs to the latter class. In order to grasp its nature, one needs first of all to become acquainted with the principles on which it is based. Before I go into these, however, I must observe that the theory of relativity resembles a building consisting of two separate stories, the special theory and the general theory. The special theory, on which the general theory rests, applies to all physical phenomena with the exception of gravitation; the general theory provides the law of gravitation and its relations to the other forces of nature. Found in: "What is the Theory of Relativity?", Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, Three Rivers Press, p. 228-9.

But there is a problem?

If we are to consider such supersymmetrical states of existence, such a fever in mind would burn up and cause dillusional results. How would we ever consider, such chaos from such a mind that tends to such realizations?

Yet we find that such events that are turned inside/out. That ole Klein bottle again and you are prsented with a whole new sets of realizations:) Can mind ever do such topologcal dance in genus 1 figures of consideration? Would we not have to include gravity in such a states of existence? Gravity has to be scalable in such features of visualizations in the quantum mind?

In numerical relativity we move our vision to these very dynamical realites and we call these comological events, yet why is not mind conisdered in this feature?

The dimsnional realization has to find a avenue for such proabbilties to move through these minds, so the door to the unconsicous, might be the subconsicous relaization of a vast network of realities? But wait did we not say that such plasmatic features realized in thsoe supersymmetrical states would burn mind? The realization of a vast world of supergravity relaizes the issues of supermetric points for consideratin yet this flow is very smooth?

We needed to look for somehtng that could come out of scuh events in consicousness and if the ideas was given a fourth dimensioonal realization would this not have suited the realizatin that from deeper levels of reality ideas are made manifest?

http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@10.oJdZbUpJ2MN.8@.1dde6c2f/19

Some might be able to follow this thinking. I know Olias will.

 

[kurious]

I think consciousness arises from a symmetry breaking process, a bit like the way in which a photon becomes massless but a w boson is not in electroweak theory.
Higher dimensions are not the only way to explain consciousness. We are made of atoms that are aware of the world around them but only when electric fields in our brain are active.The electric fields cause something different to happen - we call it consciousness .The fields cause mass or energy around us to behave differently
to what their behaviour would be in the absence of the fields, but the interaction between the electric fields of our brains and the mass or energy can be a physical interaction taking place in three dimensions of space and one dimension of time.

 

[sol2]

What other way is there, for a conversion from matter thinking, to energy, and then back again?

Reducing information from those energy fields to concrete things in mind. Is there such a thing?

Might we not call consciousness something more then a neural pont of consideration? A place, where energy can be injected. A "point" of focus to vast probabilites? It would be more then just classical thinking, once it has been joined to quantum world?

 

[Dr Jump]

Dimensionality of consciousness

Hi,

I put together an argument and accompanying graphics as to why consciousness might be a dimension or at least have a property of "dimensionality" at www.contemplations.info (see 5th dimension on the site). I put this argument together a couple of years ago and reposted it on the new web address recently. :surprise:

In any regards, I believe that science is a long way from explaining even the phenomenon of simple life (forms), much less self-awareness, abstract thought, etc. My best guess is that life and consciousness are "emergent properties" of matter/energy as first expressed by J S Mill. I don't think that physicists really have a grasp on this real phenomenon found in nature, and in fact physicists tend to side step the issue completely as far as I can tell. As I understand, physics really deals with a few basic components and how they interact and constitute the universe: matter/energy (ultimately strings?), energy fields, and dimensions. (if I'm missing an ingredient, let me know, I'm not a physicist, but a physician). The phenomenon of life and eventually self-consciousness appears to be something that matter/energy can manifest somehow when put together just the right way (I'm leaving God and other supernatural forces out of this). Whether life and ultimately self awareness are some unknown energy field, dimension, or another undiscovered phenomenon that can be explained eventually in terms of mathematics and physics, I don't know. I suspect that if I am correct about consciousness being a dimension in itself, I am about as close to it as the atomic theory of the ancient philosopher, Democritus, is to quantum mechanics. However, until this phenomenon can be explained in physics, the "Theory of Everything" seems to be seriously incomplete in this regard as well as others (e.g. dark matter and dark energy). One model I'll throw out - what if consciousness is the universe turning itself inside out to look at itself?

 

[sol2]

One model I'll throw out - what if consciousness is the universe turning itself inside out to look at itself?

Look up Liminocentric structures in google, and see what you find

 

[pelastration]

I put together an argument and accompanying graphics as to why consciousness might be a dimension or at least have a property of "dimensionality" at www.contemplations.info (see 5th dimension on the site).
...
The phenomenon of life and eventually self-consciousness appears to be something that matter/energy can manifest somehow when put together just the right way. Whether life and ultimately self awareness are some unknown energy field, dimension, or another undiscovered phenomenon that can be explained eventually in terms of mathematics and physics, I don't know.

Thanks for your post Dr Jump.

1. Yes consciousness should be related to dimensionality.
2. It's communication of information.
3. There is information of various different types and quality of data.
4. Information is stored or made in real-time
5. There must be one or more transport systems which distribute those vibrations.

We can compare this with Internet.

(a) All communication goes over wired or wireless network (ie. backbone, hubs, satellite, ...). Yes you can call that different dimensions.
It doesn't goes over "uncertain" systems (Heiseberg Uncertainty Principle), since if one system fails: no communication.
Signals and packages of information start at a source and follow all the time a channel system to arrive at the destiny. Causality.
(b) Different type of networks are LINKED. (ie. wireless internet is 'hooked up or knotted' to the wired network, and the wired network contains different types of cables like copper, glass fiber, ...).
(b) Internet transports various types of files and has several protocols (ie. http, https, ftp, ...)
(c) Internet has millions of connected servers which contain lots of different types of data.
(d) Internet is a constant dynamic changing system

If we want to understand consciousness we should take this in account. The analogy is obvious.

So all internal communication related to consciousness needs to look for an underlying transport system.

6. Finally there is still something missing in this analysis.
(i)Internet is nothing without humans.
(ii)Humans have reasons to communicate.
Free will and goals.
Thus: The choice to do something or nothing (ie. send an email, have a chat, visit a website, download a 3ivx-movie...)
(iii) Choice means: Evaluate some information or action to be more important than other(s). We can not do everything at the same time.
(iiii) Choice means: Setting 'Priorities'. So: "... NOW I want to focus on THAT!"

So when we look to consciousness we have to take also in account priorties.

7. My conclusion is that it is highly simplistic to look to consciousness just like the functions or activities of the brain, like it would be very simple to say that Internet is only a network of millions of connected servers which contain lots of different types of data.
No, in both case a lot of dimensions or structural and energetic levels are involved.

 

[Dr Jump]

Thank you both for your thoughtful comments.

Look up Liminocentric structures in google, and see what you find

Thanks, I have and it is gratifying to see that others like physicist Brian Greene ( http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/j6greene.html) and others are thinking in terms of topology/dimensions as a model for consciousness a well.

1. Yes consciousness should be related to dimensionality.
2. It's communication of information.
3. There is information of various different types and quality of data.
4. Information is stored or made in real-time
5. There must be one or more transport systems which distribute those vibrations.

I agree that some of the qualities you point out are properties of consciousness except I'm not quite sure what physicists mean by "vibrations", especially as it might apply to consciousness. My understanding is that on the quantum level "vibration" refers to a mathematical abstraction that works for string and other theories. I believe that it is beyond our apprehension, however, much like quark colors or symmetry are. If I am wrong, and something is actually vibrating like a violin spring, let me know.

We can compare this with Internet.

(a) All communication goes over wired or wireless network (ie. backbone, hubs, satellite, ...). Yes you can call that different dimensions.
It doesn't goes over "uncertain" systems (Heiseberg Uncertainty Principle), since if one system fails: no communication.
Signals and packages of information start at a source and follow all the time a channel system to arrive at the destiny. Causality.
(b) Different type of networks are LINKED. (ie. wireless internet is 'hooked up or knotted' to the wired network, and the wired network contains different types of cables like copper, glass fiber, ...).
(b) Internet transports various types of files and has several protocols (ie. http, https, ftp, ...)
(c) Internet has millions of connected servers which contain lots of different types of data.
(d) Internet is a constant dynamic changing system

If we want to understand consciousness we should take this in account. The analogy is obvious.

So all internal communication related to consciousness needs to look for an underlying transport system.

Although there are undoubtedly good analogies between the internet (the most sophisticated communication/analytical machine that we have created thus far, and the mind, it falls down seriously as a complete model of the mind/consciousness as you (below) and others like John Searle have pointed out.

6. Finally there is still something missing in this analysis.
(i)Internet is nothing without humans.
(ii)Humans have reasons to communicate.
Free will and goals.
Thus: The choice to do something or nothing (ie. send an email, have a chat, visit a website, download a 3ivx-movie...)
(iii) Choice means: Evaluate some information or action to be more important than other(s). We can not do everything at the same time.
(iiii) Choice means: Setting 'Priorities'. So: "... NOW I want to focus on THAT!"

I'm less interested in the various properties of consciousness, or life for that matter, and more interested in what it fundamentally is. At this point in time, we don't have a model that we can test and I suspect that it is a long way off. Nevertheless, I think that it worth conjecturing as to whether consciousness is how an additional dimension to the usual 4 is apprehended, whether it is some undiscovered "field" that the right number and design of neurons can manifest or tap into, whether it's a very unusual particle/energy form, or something totally distinct from the other known constituents of the cosmos. In the final analysis, we might end up throwing our hands and simply state that when RNA/DNA gets together in the right way - "Life" becomes an emergent property of these nucleotides and associated proteins, lipids, etc. It's not further reducible than that. Similarly, when enough neurons get together and create the right kind of interactions - "consciousness" becomes manifest.

Of course, if computers, the internet, or some future artifact begins to duplicate the various properties of life or consciousness as in so many science fiction stories, the last explanation would need to be seriously reexamined.

 

[pelastration]

I believe that it is beyond our apprehension, however, much like quark colors or symmetry are. If I am wrong, and something is actually vibrating like a violin spring, let me know.
...
I'm less interested in the various properties of consciousness, or life for that matter, and more interested in what it fundamentally is. At this point in time, we don't have a model that we can test and I suspect that it is a long way off. Nevertheless, I think that it worth conjecturing as to whether consciousness is how an additional dimension to the usual 4 is apprehended, whether it is some undiscovered "field" that the right number and design of neurons can manifest or tap into, whether it's a very unusual particle/energy form, or something totally distinct from the other known constituents of the cosmos.

A vibrating background can distribute various type of oscillations to other local spots. Such background may be the 'transport structure'. The background can be restructured in many more complex forms to become locally unique.

I believe you can't know what consciousness is fundamentally without taking in account the various properties. It's a complex dynamic system, if we throw parameters out we also throw conceptual values out.

We live in a 4D world (the 3D positions of all observables + the time of how they move/reposition/decay/grow). Our body and our surrounding(s) are multi-dimensional systems with many internal dimensions, each with own time-scales. Thus in our 4D-world there are many underlying dimensions which are interlinked and can communicate, convert or translate information to and from each other. The deeper you go the more you will find the more basic implicate order of David Bohm. The final background is dynamic spacetime geometry.

 

[Dr Jump]

A vibrating background can distribute various type of oscillations to other local spots. Such background may be the 'transport structure'. The background can be restructured in many more complex forms to become locally unique.

Sorry, I don't know quantum mechanics to the degree where further definitions aren't required for me. It's like me telling you that the starling curve for your heart is at a non-optimal point right now and we need to give you some diuretics and catecholamines.

I believe you can't know what consciousness is fundamentally without taking in account the various properties. It's a complex dynamic system, if we throw parameters out we also throw conceptual values out.

I agree that properties are important for understanding more about consciousness and any other phenomenon, but it still side steps the issue of what it fundamentally is. For example, the sun is round, yellow, hot, and move repeatedly across the sky. It took us long time, however, to realize that it is more fundamentally a plasma constitued celestial body that fuses hydrogen to helium, etc.

I also understand that Einstein's relativity introduced the concept of personal time, so we each have our own 4 dimensional "world." And I think I understand that you are saying we are all able to interact across this ever changing multipersonal 4 dimensional canvas. I also understand that more dimensions on a subatomic scale are conjectured to help string theory be plausible according to its math. Other physicists are theorizing additional dimensions on the cosmic scale. It's fascinating that we really know so much more about the cosmos than about ourselves. Being a fan of the history of ideas and a physician (a field whose dictums are overturned regularly), I am not willing to say that I or anyone else has much figured out yet. Thanks for your cogent thoughts.

 

[sol2]

If I am in Opposition, then do I see what Persinger Sees?

Michael Persinger has a vision - the Almighty isn't dead, he's an energy field. And your mind is an electromagnetic map to your soul.

How would this effect How Damasio sees?

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/images/damasioa.jpg


Damasio's First Law

The body precedes the mind.

Damasio's Second Law

Emotions precede feelings.

Damasio's Third Law

Concepts precede words

"What's Your Law?" http://www.edge.org/q2004/q04_print.html

What if the condensation of the human brain was the reverse, of Damasio's First Law. I mean we can train the neuron pathways to be reconstructed, by establishing the movements previously damaged by stroke.

What is the evolution of the human brain, if mind is not leading its shape?

http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@25.FPx3b3eD4Ad.0@.1dde9bc0/7

Sol

 

[selfAdjoint]

Or what if they co-evolved in dynamic interaction? Simple brains produce simple thoughts, and that's enough to give some line of hominids a selective advantage. Within that group the ones who, by chance, have a little better brain, a little more subtle thought, prosper and leave more dscendents. And so on and so on. If you don't like "thought is a behavior of the brain" you can tell this story where part of the adaptive landscape is some "thought field" or whatever. In which case the physical thing that is evolving would be a transducer to localize the field. That is pure speculation at this point.

 

[sol2]

Simple brains produce simple thoughts, and that's enough to give some line of hominids a selective advantage. Within that group the ones who, by chance, have a little better brain, a little more subtle thought, prosper and leave more dscendents.

In stroke victims, if you manually(move arm), go over the movement, neuronic pathways are re-established. What preceded neuronic pathways in order for such developements to take place?

The question about biological development would be the energy needed for such pathways to be genetically predisposed from DNA of previous donor? Hmm:)

If the condensation effect of such fields is not realized in the brain matters, as a resonating tool of gray matter, then what value, any potential in a harmonic realization of multiple neuronic firings

Lets say a emotive mind is red, while a intellectual mind is yellow. Which would be the closer association(color) the emotive mind, versus the intellectual, to the body:)

 

[Innexplicable]

The mind is devided into many segments and layers. The emotions come from the limbic system, and the outer cambrium is where intellect derives from. This association also comes from the back of the brain to the front, that back being the occupital lobe which interperates vision, and the front being the frontal lobe, which is the center of logic and reason. All these parts work together to form a reality as the occupital lobe interperates vision, transfers this information to the frontal lobe which rationalises it all, and also to the limbic system, which assigns it a certain emotion. To transfer the information from one part to another would take .04 seconds, however the brain needs to transfer the information back and forth several times before perception. The whole process=.5 seconds...but technically Damasio is right...

 

[sol2]

Damasio's First Law

A lot of times if we just change the way we have looked at things, all of a sudden new perceptions form, that were not previously there?

Lakoff:When Mark Johnson and I looked over these results from the cognitive sciences in detail, we realized that there were three major results that were inconsistent with almost all of Western philosophy (except for Merleau-Ponty and Dewey), namely:

The mind is inherently embodied.

Most thought is unconscious.

Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical.

This realization led us to ask the following question in Philosophy In The Flesh: What would happen if we started with the new results about the mind and reconstructed philosophy from there? What would philosophy look like?

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lakoff/lakoff_p5.html

Let's tAKE THE big bang for instance.

1. We can assume that it began from a singularity?

2. That in order to assume that somethng prior too, has to have some kind of validity becuase we know that for any singularityto arise, it had to arise from something?

3. If such a assumption is valid, then something had to exist.

4. The recyling universe scenario then arises, and from these singualrities, we now encapsulate this concept, by saying if such a universe is to exist then is from such points of expression that things could arise? It is part of the http://universe.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/lifecycles/cycles.jpg , and back again?

Now from a cosmological standpoint, reduce the conceptual field to the idea that all matter states as a condensive feature, have information around it? That it can be re-expressed?

That if such "entanglement issues" could arise, could we not from the issues of mind, meld with the matter states of expression, be emotively connected through the brain?

How would you then express so many neurological connectors in new images.

Holographically?

Is comprehension holographically recieved, and then reduced to its component parts

I refer often to Limninocentric structures for a reason. Sometimes cosmologically, as well as in mental constructs, as a mapping process for moving such information through a point. Is there a mind equivalent in BEC condensate or soliton configurations?

String theory reductionistic's nature has now become a backdrop of harmonic vibrations. How much energy can be contained in that point? So the four coordinates of space and one of time become a new feature to this discussion?

 

[Tom McCurdy]

I don't see how the sucess of string theory would require thought to be quicker than the speed of light, it still can only go as fast as the neurons or whatever is up there (sorry not a bio person) can cary them

 

[selfAdjoint]

In order for us to have a thought, nerve impulses have to travel along axons, neurotransmitters have to be generated and absorbed at synapses, and other physical events have to take place.

A well known experiment shows that our brains start reacting to an unexpected event about half a second before we become consciously aware of it.