Best Videocard & Processor ever

[SpeedCrazy]

The brain is a very mysterious organ. Also, there are reasons to believe it utilizes quantum mechanical effects such as information being projected backwards in time. True it is quantum physics but do we still want to consider it completely physical when it is effected by something that hasn't happened?

I knew that was going to come up eventually, i hate quantum physics.

 

If we artificially send those same signals through your brain - are they still non-physical?

The actual thought or emotion would be, a representation only represents the the though it is not the thought it self.

[Waco]

One quick thing. The electrical signals only exist within the individual neurons, so unless thoughts are at such a discrete level, there is no relationship. The communication between neurons is carried out by neurotransmitters which are probably not so easily monitored at specific points. Also, I am unaware of anyone having given a theory of how to explain a thought with the transmitters. After all, the neurotransmitters are more semantic and hardly specialized enough to be able to distinguish 'there' from 'their.' Further, there is no regulation in the amount of a transmitter that is released from a single neuron. It either fires or it doesn't. Perhaps the number of neurons that fire is the regulation, but then how is one neuron selected to fire over another?

The brain is a very mysterious organ. Also, there are reasons to believe it utilizes quantum mechanical effects such as information being projected backwards in time. True it is quantum physics but do we still want to consider it completely physical when it is effected by something that hasn't happened?

Just because we cannot explain something doesn't mean there's something more to do with it than physics. You also cannot come to the conclusion that something is non-physical based on a theory with no real evidence to back it up.

 

The actual thought or emotion would be, a representation only represents the the though it is not the thought it self.

I would say the thought or emotion is just as physical as anything else - just because we cannot measure it now does not mean it doesn't exist in the physical realm.

[Alexandre]

If we artificially send those same signals through your brain - are they still non-physical?

Just a clarification: I never said the signals are non-physical, what I said was that the information those signals represent are non-physical. Just like a CPU I/O signal is physical but the information the I/O signal represents is still non-physical.

 

That aside, what you have asked is a very intriguing question. If it is possible to map how each signal looks like then I guess it would be possible to simulate the physical representations corresponding to a non-physical entity. This will allow us to experience those non-physical qualities with our non-physical mind when we send those signals to the correct portion of our brain.

 

Mind you, the signal still wouldn't contain the non-physical entity, it will merely represent that entity which another non-physical entity, such as the mind, can then recognize.

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

 

One quick thing. The electrical signals only exist within the individual neurons, so unless thoughts are at such a discrete level, there is no relationship. The communication between neurons is carried out by neurotransmitters which are probably not so easily monitored at specific points. Also, I am unaware of anyone having given a theory of how to explain a thought with the transmitters. After all, the neurotransmitters are more semantic and hardly specialized enough to be able to distinguish 'there' from 'their.' Further, there is no regulation in the amount of a transmitter that is released from a single neuron. It either fires or it doesn't. Perhaps the number of neurons that fire is the regulation, but then how is one neuron selected to fire over another?

The brain is a very mysterious organ. Also, there are reasons to believe it utilizes quantum mechanical effects such as information being projected backwards in time. True it is quantum physics but do we still want to consider it completely physical when it is effected by something that hasn't happened?

Thanks for you clarifications Jim. I find quantum physics to be fascinating (the little I have been able to study it at university for now) but I am merely using a simplistic model which we can get our heads around. I know it isn't perfect ("No model is perfect - some are just useful") but I think it will do for our discussion.

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

 

Just because we cannot explain something doesn't mean there's something more to do with it than physics. You also cannot come to the conclusion that something is non-physical based on a theory with no real evidence to back it up.

I think you're quite right in your above assessment but the problem is that we cannot come to a conclusion that something is purely physical by calling upon some sort of technological advancement that we may have in the future also. We deal with the information we now have to come to our conclusions.

 

I have already given what I think is a reasonable argument for the existence of a immaterial mind and the duality (or separation) of the mind and brain. I will summarize my argument here as follows:

 

1) Physical entities have physical properties such as mass, energy, spacial dimensions, etc.

2) These physical properties can be accessed and observed by third-persons.

3) The brain is a physical entity as it has the properties described in point 1 and 2.

4) Our mind which includes, our thoughts, emotions and consciousness can only be accessed by first-persons - each individual has complete de se or private knowledge of these things.

5) Thus our mind must not be a physical entity.

6) Thus our brain is not our mind.

 

Now I know you may argue that we have observed our thoughts, emotions, etc but like I have explained above, what scientists have observed is not the thought or emotion itself but a neuron activity correlating to those thoughts, emotions, etc - otherwise we would see the actual thought there in our brain such as "I like icecream".

 

I would say the thought or emotion is just as physical as anything else - just because we cannot measure it now does not mean it doesn't exist in the physical realm.

We can say a lot of things but like you already mentioned above, we all need to provide evidence for our conclusions and show why someone should believe what we believe.

 

Measuring is not the same as feeling or seeing or thinking. If these things are non-physical then we can only use something non-physical to interpret them and hence no matter how much physics we use, we will never be able to interpret them by mere physical processes (sending an identical signal to the brain (if ever possible) would not a mere physical process because the non-physical mind interprets these signals as the representations of the non-physical entities)

 

Sorry for the extremely long post guys but I hope that provides some food for thought

[yamilegend]

I'm not too sure about this. We can't really overclock our brains and eyes unless we do drugs, and if then, we only end up like Charlie Sheen.

 

great example jajajajaja

[Waco]

Now I know you may argue that we have observed our thoughts, emotions, etc but like I have explained above, what scientists have observed is not the thought or emotion itself but a neuron activity correlating to those thoughts, emotions, etc - otherwise we would see the actual thought there in our brain such as "I like icecream".

So the only reason you believe the brain is non-physical is that we cannot yet directly read thoughts / emotions and what they mean?

 

IE: if tomorrow a new technology came out that allowed you to completely read any thought or memory that someone has - is the brain then a physical entity along with all of its memories and emotions?

[SpeedCrazy]

So the only reason you believe the brain is non-physical is that we cannot yet directly read thoughts / emotions and what they mean?

 

IE: if tomorrow a new technology came out that allowed you to completely read any thought or memory that someone has - is the brain then a physical entity along with all of its memories and emotions?

If you constantly rely on something further down the line to prove your point you will never be able to prove your point. eg. Darwin and macro-evolution, his original hypothesis of macro-evolution relied on fossil evidence which had not yet been discovered, he relied on non existent proof to prove his theory. And that evidence he relied on has never been found.

**Note: i am discussing the original hypothesis of macro-evolution, not any of the new variant hypothesis's. Which are as a side note equally false in my opinion.**

To argue you must rely on current evidence you cant rely on something that may or may not happen. If it does happen, great, we accept that and formulate a new or adapted understanding of how things work, but you cant base your understandings on facts that dont exist.

 

The current 'mind reading' if you will, is limited to knowing the general feeling, they can tell that you are angry or fearful or whatever, they cant tell what you are angry at, or fearful of. And personally i dont think they ever will be able to.

[Kamikaze_Badger]

It is still a means to increase the ability of the brain past what it was originally, just lie overclocking. At least we don't need to worry about voiding the warranty.

The point I was trying to make is that there are ways by which to make the brain operate faster than it had been, just like with oberclocking a computer.

 

 

I thought it was "you know you only use 10% of your brain!" at any given moment. There isn't any part of the brain that isn't utilized, it's jut that they aren't all fully activated at the same time. Besides, wouldn't the subconscious system functions be dealt with in the hind and midbrain while the higher order processes human's are capable of are executed in the forebrain? So it's the forebrain we want more activated... I think.

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp

 

And you really can't compare the two. Sure they both utilize a lot of electricity, but they work entirely differently.

[BluePanda]

If you constantly rely on something further down the line to prove your point you will never be able to prove your point. eg. Darwin and macro-evolution, his original hypothesis of macro-evolution relied on fossil evidence which had not yet been discovered, he relied on non existent proof to prove his theory. And that evidence he relied on has never been found.

**Note: i am discussing the original hypothesis of macro-evolution, not any of the new variant hypothesis's. Which are as a side note equally false in my opinion.**

Evolution is real. Matt Groening says so.

 

Edited March 20, 2011 by BluePanda

[Waco]

If you constantly rely on something further down the line to prove your point you will never be able to prove your point. eg. Darwin and macro-evolution, his original hypothesis of macro-evolution relied on fossil evidence which had not yet been discovered, he relied on non existent proof to prove his theory. And that evidence he relied on has never been found.

**Note: i am discussing the original hypothesis of macro-evolution, not any of the new variant hypothesis's. Which are as a side note equally false in my opinion.**

To argue you must rely on current evidence you cant rely on something that may or may not happen. If it does happen, great, we accept that and formulate a new or adapted understanding of how things work, but you cant base your understandings on facts that dont exist.

 

The current 'mind reading' if you will, is limited to knowing the general feeling, they can tell that you are angry or fearful or whatever, they cant tell what you are angry at, or fearful of. And personally i dont think they ever will be able to.

I'm not relying on it to prove my point - neither am I suggesting that anything I post will pass any kind of scientific analysis.

 

I won't, however, jump to conclusions just because we can't prove something today. That's just not how science works. If restrict yourself to the idea that we can't theorize something simply because we can't prove it yet we'd never have any sort of progress on anything scientific - most research is "well I think this, can we prove this?" or something similar. Magnets, electricity, etc were all theorized long before they were completely figured out.

 

I won't even go into the evolution argument - it's extremely difficult to start a discussion on that topic without starting a flame war.

[SpeedCrazy]

Evolution is real. Matt Groening says so.

 

Thank you for your wonderfully enlightening addition to the discussion. Please dont get me started on evolution as it would derail our current discussion which i am finding quite interesting.

[BluePanda]

Thank you for your wonderfully enlightening addition to the discussion. Please dont get me started on evolution as it would derail our current discussion which i am finding quite interesting.

Just thought it was interesting that you don't believe in something that's already been proven but you do believe in something that has no proof at all.

[Guest_Jim_*]

I believe in Santa!