On Consciousness

Is consciousness physical or metaphysical?

  • Consciousness is a kind of data processing and the brain is a machine that can be replicated in othe

    Votes: 81 86.2%

  • Consciousness requires a second substance outside the physical material world, currently undetectabl

    Votes: 3 3.2%

  • On Planet X, unconscious biological beings have perfected conscious machines

    Votes: 10 10.6%
  • Total voters
    94
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
The only question you have is to measure the length of the coastline.

It's up to you how you do it, or to state here what problems you might see in doing such.
 
Zeuzzz said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5HFZpMaWe0#at=60

Check the experiment he does at three minutes. Stopping one side of the brain functioning to a certain extent by transcranial magnetic stimulation, so they see more of reality than they usually would.
Click to expand...

Please pay attention: if EM theory was correct, your consciousness would be severely affected by everyday appliances. It is not. Ergo, the theory is not correct.
 
Belz... said:
Please pay attention: if EM theory was correct, your consciousness would be severely affected by everyday appliances. It is not. Ergo, the theory is not correct.
Click to expand...


Because its neurochemical signals, and overall neutral (as the EM force is 10^36 times stronger than gravity) they largely cancel charges so we are a neutral body. So we have no net charge to be effected. Even though, as you just saw, transcranial magnetic effects do have an effect when done very specifically.

What are you comments on the documentary?
 
Zeuzzz said:
Curious: If you were to measure the the length of a coastline (Belz, Pixy) would you factor in the tides and waves in your measurement? Or adhere to a more rigid quantised and quantifiable criterion to make the measurement?
Click to expand...

Isn't that the problem? I just went down to the Peconic Bay, part of the coastline of North America. Examining the details closely, it looked like every closer analysis could present problems in measurement. This meter of coastlines contains thousands of smaller configurations, baylets and smaller baylets. At what level do we give up measuring?
 
Zeuzzz said:
Because its neurochemical signals, and overall neutral (as the EM force is 10^36 times stronger than gravity) they largely cancel charges so we are a neutral body. So we have no net charge to be effected.
Click to expand...

Interesting; So you are saying no object with a net electrical charge can be effected by a magnetic field?
Is that correct?
 
trebor said:
Interesting; So you are saying no object with a net electrical charge can be effected by a magnetic field?
Is that correct?
Click to expand...


Nope, you can get induction from passing metal with no net charge through coils and various shapes to produce electromagnetic inudction, and the lenz's law effect, but when applying strong EM forces to the brain (like huge ones from static magnets) it seemingly does do nothing. It starts to get a whole lot more complex, thus the transcranial instruments used in the example, they don't use simple bar magnets.

I've not looking into all the details at this point.
 
Last edited:
Jeff Corey said:
Isn't that the problem? I just went down to the Peconic Bay, part of the coastline of North America. Examining the details closely, it looked like every closer analysis could present problems in measurement. This meter of coastlines contains thousands of smaller configurations, baylets and smaller baylets. At what level do we give up measuring?
Click to expand...


When you stop using mathematical abstractions like lines that are one dimensional, and do not exist in nature.

Do you factor in the tides? The waves? The rivers?

We live in a 3D world, to describing something based on a one dimensional line is ... just silly.

Use elephants, trunk to tail, as your three dimensional measuring unit :) Would give a less confusing answer.

Even if the logistics of assembling the elephants would be very hard.

*phones Dr doolittle*
 
Last edited:
Jeff Corey said:
Isn't that the problem? I just went down to the Peconic Bay, part of the coastline of North America. Examining the details closely, it looked like every closer analysis could present problems in measurement. This meter of coastlines contains thousands of smaller configurations, baylets and smaller baylets. At what level do we give up measuring?
Click to expand...


"To see a world in a grain of sand, And a heaven in a wild flower, Hold infinity in the palm of your hand, And eternity in an hour."
- William Blake.
 
Zeuzzz said:
A high % of accuracy, not before attained.
Click to expand...

You either don't understand the point or are pretending to be slow. The question is what use will you put the figure to?

For instance, if we want to see how many people could fit on the coastline such that they can see the water but won't get their feet wet, we'll find one figure useful. If we want to build a fence all the way around the coast that will be out of the water at low tide, but may or may not be submerged at high tide, and that will keep dogs out of the water, another figure will be useful and meaningful.

Point being? If someone asks me the length of the coastline I can ask them why they want to know and give them a figure that's useful to that purpose.
 
Roboramma said:
You either don't understand the point or are pretending to be slow. The question is what use will you put the figure to?
Click to expand...


It would be put it use, by me, as the most accurate measurement of the coastline ever made.

But it would not have a use. As it can't be done using a one dimensional line in the real world, even though that would've likely have been the way you started thinking and conceptualising the issue to begin with.

I asked the question as it relates the wave properties of the EM field and how we quantise it's properties at the plank scale.

Ok this example is turning into a rapid fail, I might restart it again later when brain cells are firing better, but i'm too tired now. :)

Thanks, anyway.
 
Last edited:
Jeff Corey said:
Not really. The test tells whether a particular human can discriminate between certain visible wavelengths when apparent brightness is controlled for. It completely relies on the measurement of observable behavior and can be accomplished in nonverbal animals such as the pigeon..
Click to expand...

Are you saying that seeing red is more than discriminating between certain visible wavelengths?
 
PixyMisa said:
What precision?
Click to expand...


Ok last try.
The highest accuracy you can find.

The concept of a coastline is where waves of water meet solid land.

If you are asking precision as in a predefined unit of measurement to use, lets go for the same plank scale (the same scale you use to quantise the EM field to derive materialistic philosophies from the particles that result from quantising its spectrum)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom