Mr Newton's Classroom

[Brain Man]

A lot of people think god is some kind of superintelligence out in space. You are really referring to a type of universe wide magnetic field that is atomic in nature. although how can matter come after free will ?

Consciousness does not require a lot. Some people like prof hameroff say it starts at parmecium

i.e. http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/views/freewill.html

however the scientists actively working on consciousness he has as guest speakers at his conferences point out consciousness requires active recurrent feedback between different systems. That rules out parmecium and jumps us up to fish at least.

---NOTICE EVERYONE WHO IS CRITICAL, THIS IS A REAL SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION, USING REASON, LOGIC, MANNERS, REFERENCES, ETC.----- For those of you who are not doing this, please quit wasting our time, and space.


I would say that the above description of what consciousness requires is the same as what I was saying: Consciousness is: a system of Mutually Inductive Fields of Energy.

That is just a scientific way of saying, whatever effects one field is experienced by all fields in the system. In Human Brains, these fields are analogous to Neurons.

Correct if I am wrong, but Doesn't a single Neuron store a single Bioelectric field, and doesn't the brain store memories using several neurons in the way holographs do, with interference patterns?

In that way the brain stores memories across several neurons, but each neuron holds a bit (however that 'Bit' is more complicated than a simple 1 or 0). Also in this way, when up to 3/4 of the brain of a salamander was removed, the remaining 1/4 was able to restore its function (just like a piece of holographic film still contains the entire image).


As far as Free Will, I explain in "How We Exist" (at: freeornottobe.org) how Creativity provides the ability to imagine future events or activities which are not purely from memory. In other words, it is creativity that allows us to invent, create unique art, and to not just predict the future, but to change it. This is the origin of what we call Free Will. Other animals do not have the ability to diverge from what they have observed. Primates other than Humans paint only what they have seen. Animals which build do only what they have been shown, or what they have figured out step by step.

Granted this is also how most Human creations came to be, but there are many examples of invention, art, and innovation which no animal can match (other than Humans).

Simple Consciousness does not require Creativity or Free will because animals are just a conscious as we are.


BrainMan, why does this: "consciousness requires active recurrent feedback between different systems", rule out paramecium, and jump us up to fish as the simplest conscious entity? (I know the answer is a bit complicated)

.

Parmcium are one dimensional structures. They are just automatons composed of a load of microtubles. Fish at least are starting to have several separate components in the nervous systems structure that interact with each other. But they are still far too prone to natural selection. Humans are intelligent because we now control and shape natural selection and our mutations with intent as we please. I suppose once inter group selection started occurring you could say that a species were on the road to intelligence. Previous to that they were just automatons directed by mutations and their environment, hence not a lot happened for hundreds of millions of years.

Also you have to understand the term God baffles me as well as lot of people. We were not brought up with bibles etc. Its an alien concept that we are aware a lot of people in the world were raised on. There are all different versions of what a God is, so it would be helpful if you could describe what version of a god you are proposing in terms of properties it possesses.

1. So far you proposed its a basic form of universal physics maybe interconnected fields through dark matter. Even a lot of hard scientists don't have much of a problem with that concept.

2. When you say god created universe etc...do you mean an entity that is more intelligent that humans ? So it has large information storage, means to process and access that storage, physical machinery to move objects and matter about ?

[Hermit]

I myself have pondered the wave potential of a spinning neuron as it radiates its trans-dimensional dipoles across an unbounded singularity upon a Calabi–Yau 5-sphere.

Beautiful, but parody and tragicomedy upon this theme has been done before. If you expand on the above, you could give Alan Sokal a run for his money.

Alternately, you could trump the brothers Bogdanov in the bullshit stakes. They actually got a PhD each, eventually.

Daniel Sternheimer (of CNRS) took over the job of supervising the Bogdanovs. According to Sternheimer, the twins viewed themselves as "the Einstein brothers" and had a propensity to voice vague, "impressionistic" statements; he considered guiding their efforts "like teaching My Fair Lady to speak with an Oxford accent." [...] One of the scientists who approved Igor Bogdanov's thesis, MIT's Roman Jackiw, spoke to New York Times reporter Dennis Overbye. Overbye writes Jackiw was intrigued by the thesis, although it contained many points he did not understand. Jackiw defended the thesis:

All these were ideas that could possibly make sense. It showed some originality and some familiarity with the jargon. That's all I ask.

In contrast, Igniatios Antoniadis (of the École Polytechnique), who approved Grichka Bogdanov's thesis, later reversed his judgment of it. Antoniadis told Le Monde,

J'avais donné un avis favorable pour la soutenance de Grichka, basé sur une lecture rapide et indulgente du texte de la thèse. Hélas, je me suis complètement trompé. Le langage scientifique était juste une apparence derrière laquelle se cachaient une incompétence et une ignorance de la physique, même de base. (I had given a favorable opinion for Grichka's defense, based on a rapid and indulgent reading of the thesis text. Alas, I was completely mistaken. The scientific language was just an appearance behind which hid incompetence and ignorance of even basic physics.)

[Brain Man]

Also there is no symmetry in a dipole. We discussed this previously. How can there be with contraction at proton end and expansion at electron end ? The winding patterns are not mirror images, they are pushed to an offset by each others unbalanced forces the dipole is asymmetrical.

Symmetry is in the neutron where internal energy is balanced. So where ever there are neutron masses there will be symmetrical expressions. i.e. Black holes. This view also backs up the concept that symmetry patterns etc are an expression of neutral mass. Mass with force acting externally results in asymmetry. Asymmetrical force will destroy symmetrical patterns, unless the symmetrical patterns reside inside nuclear or electromagnetic force at an angle of offset.

Also this forum is not the right place to try and discuss this topic. As if anybody here is even going to entertain the possibility there are facets of your work which make sense.

Its a hardline athiest forum. They view all product of the mind of somebody with a belief in god as rubbish. I used to be like this till i realized it did not have a sound basis and was really todays excuse for being ignorant.
.

[JimC]

Brain Man wrote:

Its a hardline athiest forum. They view all product of the mind of somebody with a belief in god as rubbish. I used to be like this till i realized it did not have a sound basis and was really todays excuse for being ignorant.

Priceless! Are you sure you are not a Poe?

Also this forum is not the right place to try and discuss this topic.

[Brain Man]

Priceless! Are you sure you are not a Poe?

SLACKENHASH !!

[LucidFlight]

I myself have pondered the wave potential of a spinning neuron as it radiates its trans-dimensional dipoles across an unbounded singularity upon a Calabi–Yau 5-sphere.

Beautiful, but parody and tragicomedy upon this theme has been done before. If you expand on the above, you could give Alan Sokal a run for his money.

Alternately, you could trump the brothers Bogdanov in the bullshit stakes. They actually got a PhD each, eventually.
<snip stuff about Bogdanov brothers

“[L]a valeur de ce travail est nulle.” Exactement!

[harleyborgais]

Ok, this is the second obvious mistake I have made (the other was on the Work of Harley Borgais thread: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseud ... 2-160.html)...

When I said "Kinetic Energy" of a mass resting on a surface, I should have said "Potential Energy" instead. Sorry, that was certainly an Elementary School Error. There really is no good excuse for it. I will try proof read my posts better.

Also when I said: "...Energy as a general term which can refer to Momentum of a Pressure wave of Matter (sound), or to a Pressure wave of Electrical Charge..."

Instead of: "Pressure wave of Electrical Charge" I should have said something more like: a "Wave of Electrical Charge" or: "Wave Fronts of Electrical Pressure", or "Electrical Pressure Waves" with this right after: " (EM Waves),".

I was trying just to say that Sound Waves and EM Waves are regions of Pressure in motion, and that they are both forms of Energy just as much as Potential Energy of a mass resting on a surface.

What do you think of this re-phrasing JimC? (Maybe you can even respond in an adult and respectable manner, like a descent teacher ought to)

[Hermit]

I should have said something more like: a "Wave of Electrical Charge" or: "Wave Fronts of Electrical Pressure", or "Electrical Pressure Waves"

Electricity has measurable properties of charge, current, field and potential. I suggest you stick to those, unless you can tell us what the introduction of the word "wave" adds to the understanding of electricity and how electricity interacts in the real world in a way that already existing concepts don't? Of course you'll have to do that using observed phenomena. Reminder: In the real world.

[LucidFlight]

What do you think of this re-phrasing JimC? (Maybe you can even respond in an adult and respectable manner, like a descent teacher ought to)

(My highlighting.)

Do you mean one who teaches evolutionary biology?

[harleyborgais]

I think that what a teacher teaches should be determined by the parents for a public school, and by the administrators of private schools.

I do however agree with evolution, and that it should be taught as a likely explanation, but creationist beliefs should also be presented. The young will hopefully grow up to prove to us which is right. I think Evolution is an intentional byproduct of Gods design (and that design refers to the forces of nature, not directly the design of DNA, life-forms, or galaxies).

[LucidFlight]

Oh, OK.

So, the main product of design is the forces of nature, and we are a by-product? What leads you to this conclusion? How do you differentiate intentional design from unintentional design? That is to say, how do you know it was not God's specific intention for life to evolve, rather than it being a by-product?

[Tigger]

I think that what a teacher teaches should be determined by the parents for a public school, and by the administrators of private schools.

I do however agree with evolution, and that it should be taught as a likely explanation, but creationist beliefs should also be presented. The young will hopefully grow up to prove to us which is right. I think Evolution is an intentional byproduct of Gods design (and that design refers to the forces of nature, not directly the design of DNA, life-forms, or galaxies).

There's nothing to "agree with" about evolution: it's a fact. Creationists' beliefs are just that, beliefs unsupported by anything but subjectivity, and the young need not waste any more of their time exploring the vagaries of the theistic fantasy world any longer. It's utter bullshit, and humanity has wasted enough time speculating about the existence of sky fairies. We don't need them any more, nor do we need to waste another generation indoctrinating our children to accept this crap. Theists are always guilty of overcomplicating things: if evolution is feasible and you regard it as a by-product of of a god's design, why invoke the existence of such a god in the first place? You are wasting your life even contemplating the existence of a deity, and timewasting is one reason I rarely partake in religious discussions but I have a minute to kill before my bread's ready. Omnomnom. Before you ask, I had far better reasons to join an atheist forum than theism. Omnomnom again, but of the flesh.

[harleyborgais]

BrainMan,


Maybe we do agree in that Reality is only about 50% interconnected, because I have also said that Reality is a balance between constructive and destructive forces.

The constructive forces are the bonding forces, and radiation is generally the destructive force which accounts for that 50% of disconnectedness.

[harleyborgais]

Let me put it this way, there are four possibilities to consider:

1)a)God exists and you believe = You go to Heaven.
b)God exists and you disbelieve = You go to Hell.
2)a)God doesn't exist and you believe anyways = Your life is generally better off if you live morally to avoid sin.
b)God doesn't exist and you disbelieved the whole time = No Hell, but quite likely you will be a Godless SOB, people wont like you and your life may suck!


OBVIOUSLY, believing is the best and safest bet. It does not hurt to believe in God unless you go Crusading, but as I have learned, most of the horrific things done in the name of a God did not comply with the belief system of that God.

For Example Muslim Extremists are going directly against their own beliefs by attacking people unprovoked, killing people just for being Christian, or refusing to forgive those that repent.

[harleyborgais]

BrainMan has presented the most intelligent argument I have come across so far.

1st Place for BrainMan for Intelligent Debate.