"In a series of landmark experiments in the 1920s, brain scientist Karl Lashley found that no matter what portion of a rat's brain he removed he was unable to eradicate its memory of how to perform complex tasks it had learned prior to surgery. The only problem was that no one was able to come up with a mechanism that might explain this curious "whole in every part" nature of memory storage."

"The storage of memory is not the only neurophysiological puzzle that becomes more tractable in light of Pribram's holographic model of the brain. Another is how the brain is able to translate the avalanche of frequencies it receives via the senses (light frequencies, sound frequencies, and so on) into the concrete world of our perceptions.
Encoding and decoding frequencies is precisely what a hologram does best. Just as a hologram functions as a sort of lens, a translating device able to convert an apparently meaningless blur of frequencies into a coherent image, Pribram believes the brain also comprises a lens and uses holographic principles to mathematically convert the frequencies it receives through the senses into the inner world of our perceptions.
An impressive body of evidence suggests that the brain uses holographic principles to perform its operations. Pribram's theory, in fact, has gained increasing support among neurophysiologists."

This isn't a really new idea but it's interesting and trippy - check it out: http://twm.co.nz/hologram.html

this is a fascinating topic, this Hologram idea of Pribram, but unfortunately I have to be terse in this post, but will try to take it up again, later.

first, the brain does not use holographic principles.  Is does use distributed, redundant systems which makes it robust to removing parts of it, as Lashley did in the 1920's.  But Lashley's experiments, while on the face of it they appear to support the holographic hypothesis of Pribram, subsequent experiments have ruled it out entirely.  About memory storage, the whole is certainly not in every part, and it has been known for a long time now that the hippocampus playing a fundamental role in recent memory, before it gets distributed to other parts of the brain and made redundant.  The point being that Pribram is wrong, and every respectable neuroscientist knows this.  The brain does not use holographic principles.   In fact, the brain is far more complicated, so that even today, we don't know completely about how it's organized.  But we do know that it employs distributed, redundant systems and not holographic principles.

Again, it's a fascinating topic and I didn't mean to be so hard on Pribram.  I was fascinated when I read his theory as an undergrad, though when I became a grad student in neuroscience, I quickly learned that Pribram was wrong and greatly over-simplified things.  But I do appreciate you posting this, and hope others will comment as well.

take care,
Shawn

i was pretty sure brains aren't holographic, otherwise why should there be different parts like the hippocampus and speech centers and orientation areas and so on. It's a great theory tho, too bad it's wrong.

The part that seems interesting and trippy is the notion that subatomic quantum weirdness plays a part in the structure and workings of our brains, and therefore of consciousness. Is there any kind of direct relationship?
i sure don't know, and as far as i can tell from all my layman reading, nobody else does either.
i guess figuring that out would be a step towards figuring out a complete ontology, which some say ain't never gonna happen.

I just started a book called the Holographic Universe so maybe in a little while I'll be able to discuss this topic.

Shawn,

Has anyone ever addressed the point that the brain may be a redundancy of the mind?  A physical copy here on the particle side of its waveform 'Twin'
A philosophy of this nature, once explored, might go a long way towards resolution between spirit and body; brain and mind.  Redundant memory systems on this side, holographic systems on the other?

Of course, you now know my pursuasion to be in this direction since I am mainly concerned with establishing a visionary 'bridge' between the two.

hello John,

In epiphenomenalism, the mind is just 'epiphenoma' of the brain.  That is, the mind (and consciousness) is just something that's 'tagged' onto brain function without any apparent significance or causal efficacy.   I think this position is sort of the reverse that you bring up, of the brain being a redundancy of the mind.  I don't think I've heard of your suggestion before.  Perhaps you could explain more in detail what you mean by 'redundancy'?  Is it something akin to the wave/particle duality in quantum mechanics?  I believe Niels Bohr, a noted physicist, made some suggestions along the lines that the wave/particle duality in quantum mechanics may be similar to the mind/brain duality.  An interesting suggestion, though my preference of 'identity' theories of mind and brain function incline me to view the application of the wave/particle duality ideas from quantum mechanics to understanding the mind/brain duality as somewhat misleading.   In essence, I believe in the phenomological-physical as underlying reality and giving rise to apparently separate phenomenological and physical properties, which are solely attributed to the particular frame of reference we're in.   That is, my understanding of the mind/brain relation is something like the electro-magnetic field in physics, where whether you observe an electric field or a magnetic one depends on your frame of reference.   This is a similar concept to the space-time continuum, where neither space or time exist separately, but rather as part of space-time.  It's the same thing for mind and physical processes (including brain processes, but not necessarily limited to them), where neither mind nor physical processes exist separately, but rather as part of a mind-'physical process' entity that is observed as mind (1st person, subjective) or physical process (3rd person, objective) depending on what frame of reference you're in.

Shawn,
This is the core of a system that I have been working on for some time.  I have been nibbling around the edges at describing this system.  I would like to articulate it in as simple a way as possible.  There are so many pieces to it.  This is not an area that is a strength in my kitbag.
I would like to name it simply, "A two world theory" as a start point.
The theory is accompanied by an accompanying set of unauthordox methods of viewing it as well.
The results begin to cross correlate some contiguous sciences under your scutiny.

Phenomenologists would regard the mind as the basis, and any scientific theory as a content of it. They would investigate how our making science is rooted in our daily experience. For example, time doesn't exist in our experience, only the ever-changing present. (Lebendige Gegenwart, as called by Husserl, the living present.) And by processing the experiences you have in this living present you derive the idea of a one-dimensional time, stretching from past to future. But that's only a human construction, it doesn't exist in reality. (Perhaps it does, but we can't perceive it as such, so for us it's only construction.)

And they would do this with all phenomena we perceive, since the concepts of science all have their basis there. Like that they understand the idea of the brain as it is formed from the beginning. But their basis still will be the mind for it's there where all ideas reside. And they strive for understanding how this formation is accomplished.

If you stay within this approach you won't be able to interprete the brain as a substrate for the mind. Neither would you say they're identical. But it's not clear whether staying within this approach is a shortfall. Could be seen as such, but you could also broaden this approach by integrating results the phenomenologists haven't considered so far, like all this vision and dream stuff.

Numinoso,
This is hard enough to articulate for the first time, if you want to muck it up, please let me get it out first.

yes and no

Numinoso,

Sorry for being rude.  My brow was furrowed.  How can I help you?

Shawn,
You seem to be right that the brain does not use holographic principles, per se, but instead relies on distributed redundant systems to resist memory-loss, however, I suspect that modern holographic theory has abandoned that proposition which you have refuted and is now making a rather more radical claim; that the universe itself is a hologram.  Hence the title of this thread and the titled of the page linked by evadtheprophet.

"The brain uses holographic principles.", is a different claim than

"The universe itself is a hologram.", is it not?

It seems you have refuted the first claim, and it seems that so has the document @ http://twm.co.nz/hologram.html .  My reason for thinking so is that while skimming that document I came across this statement:

"In a universe in which individual brains are actually indivisible portions of the greater hologram and everything is infinitely interconnected..."

This seems to suggest to me that within the brain, "distributed redundant systems" and not "holographic principles" ARE what are being utilized, but the brain, being a part of the universe, is itself a hologram (a hologram which seems to utilize distributed redundant sytems).  Holographic Theory is extremely exciting because it solves any number of ontological stumbling blocks such as consciousness expansion, non-local causality, and so-called "supernatural" phenomena.  Do you think the distinction I am drawing between what you are refuting and what is actually being claimed - which may or may not need Lashley's findings to fly - is at all plausible?

Mind you, I have not yet been able to take the time to thoroughly read "The Universe as a Hologram" or "The Holographic Universe" yet, but these are my initial impressions.  I would love to hear more from DarkDeus when he is finished reading The Holographic Universe.

Here are a few quotes from Philip K. Dick's VALIS:

"Tractates: Cryptica Scriptura...

10. Apollonius of Tyana, writing as Hermes Trismegistos, said, 'That which is above is that which is below.'  By this he meant to tell us that our universe is a hologram, but he lacked the term.

...

14. The universe is information and we are stationary in it, not three-dimensional and not in space or time.  The information fed to us we hypostasize into the phenomenal world.

...

22. I term the Immortal one a plasmate, because it is a form of energy; it is living information.  It replicates itself - not through information or in information - but as information.

...

30. The phenomenal world does not exist; it is a hypostasis of the information processed by the Mind.

31. We hypostasize information into objects.  Rearrangement of objects is change in the content of information; the message has changed.  This is a language which we have lost the ability to read.  We ourselves are a part of this language; changes in us are changes in the content of the information.  We ourselves are information-rich; information enters us, is processed and is projected outwards once more, now in an altered form.  We are not aware that we are doing this, that in fact this is all we are doing.

...

36. In Summary;  thoughts of the brain are experienced by us as arrangements and rearrangements - change - in a physical universe; but in fact it is really information and information processing which we substantialize.  We do not merely see its thoughts as objects, but rather as the movement, or, more precisely, the placement of objects; how they become linked to on another.  But we cannot read the patterns of arrangement; we cannot extract the information in it - i.e. it as information, which is what it is.  The linking and relinking of objects by the brain is actually a language, but not a language like ours (since it is addressing itself and not someone or something outside itself)."

Thanks for a great site, Shawn!

Clive Giffin
As bright as I am, this light is not my own.

Shawn,

What is the difference between distributed redundant systems and a hologram?  Are they not the same using differing terminology?  One the terminology of science and the other the terminology of wholeness?  One the view from a digital prospective, the other the view from an analogue sightline?
If one views phenomena from a scientific angle the words have to be precise, correct so that everyone can examine what is claimed to be seen equally.
In the hologrammic view, everyone has a slightly different interferometric viewpoint.  We are points in a hologram and we are also collective animals with both demands to be satisfied.  My point is that we are both and should soon start to move to this position of viewing the world in a simultaneous and  multiparemetic way.

hello Clive,

and welcome to the forum.  I've read the article at http://twm.co.nz/hologram.html , but it seems like the person who wrote it concurs with Pribram and with the brain using holographic principles for memory storage, which is wrong.  The more interesting thing, though, is this notion of the universe being something like a hologram, like the implication in The Matrix Reloaded.   What I thought was also interesting was the fish example (looking at different sides of the tank and concluding the fish is the same) to argue that correlated particles separated by very large distances are one and the same.   Also, such statements as 'at a deeper level of reality all things in the universe are infinitely interconnected' are provocative, but is this statement any different from 'at a deeper level of reality all things in the universe are of the same substance'.

The analogy involving the way holograms work and the way that the brain constructs reality is bogus, I think.   It may be true that the brain is somehow creating perceived reality through the coordinated activities of billions of neurons, but this is a far cry (and that's putting it mildly) from shining a light through an interference pattern to generate a hologram.    Our mental realities are not generated in any manner similar to the way holograms are generated.   The question of whether the "Objective Universe" is anything like a hologram is doubtful, I think.   Fine, so particles can exhibit long range correlations through quantum mechanical interactions, but this is not evidence for a hologram.   Simply saying that "the Whole is in each of it's parts" does not make the thing a hologram.    For example, take a totally interconnected neural network, where the activity of any one neuron is influenced by the activity in the rest of the network.  Well, you could say that the whole network is contained in a single neuron (since the single neurons activity is a function of the entire network activity), but in no way is the network operating like a hologram.   We refer to the activities in such interconnected networks as "distributed computing".   But distributed computing is not the same as being a hologram.  The "Objective Universe" may well be, at a very deep level, just a big interconnected network involved with distributed computations, but that wouldn't make it a hologram.

I understand what you're saying about the universe being a hologram, and I admit to having a "Wow" response when I saw that implication in the Matrix Reloaded.   But, on further reflection, the holographic paradigm is too limited (for example, it explains nothing about the role of consciousness, and how do you get consciousness from a hologram or are we talking about sentient holograms?), and there are other competing alternative paradigms that seem equally, if not more, plausible.  And so, while I'll remain open-minded on the issue, I regard the holographic Universe as unlikely, even though it's still fun to think about, and may even inspire even better ideas and metaphors regarding what the universe really is.

take care,
Shawn

QUOTE

What is the difference between distributed redundant systems and a hologram? Â

that's a good question, John.   A hologram is created by shining light through an interference pattern.  The interference pattern is the fourier transform of the object from which the hologram was created.  So, creating a hologram is like performing a fourier transformation to retrieve an image of a 3D object from it's fourier transform (the interference pattern).  Because of the nature of the fourier transform of the 3D object, information about the object is stored in a distributed manner in the interference pattern.  So, if you destroy part of the pattern, you can still retrieve the entire 3D object (though it'll be slightly degraded).

A distributed redundant network is a highly interconnected network such that destroying parts of it does not compromise the activity in the remaining parts.  

The similarity between a hologram and distributed redundant network just seems to be that you can destroy part of the interference pattern or network, and still obtain the whole image or uncompromised network activity, respectively.   But the similarity ends there.    Network activity is nothing like a 3D holographic image (and you can't use it, like Pribram did, to explain consciousness away using the holographic paradigm since consciousness, while it's produced or identical to network activity, is nothing like a holographic image).   An interference pattern is nothing like a network.    Hence, a hologram is nothing like a distributed redundant system, except in the similarity I noted above.

By your statement "We are points in a hologram", you mean that the Whole is contained in each one of us, right?

It is fairly elementary, however if it would provide any insight into the question stated, the august issue of scientific american has an article on our "holographic selves" or the possibility and some information.  The site is www.sciam.com and you can flip through the isues to find the one with the hologram information in it.

http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/met...ages18/119.html


It is simply amazing how a picture can float into my head and I am wondering where the heck did that come from:)

Well let me tell you about the picture.

We talk about shadows and things and you relate, the subject of Plato's cave. Well for me, this sets up my thinking process, so I am off into the world to explore the potentials of that perspective, and see where I have come across these things before. In the post I have given links for extra reading.

Well what was this picture:) I am looking at the wall, and the wall is white, and on that wall is the shadow:) Now if you were to look at this shadow, from what perspective would you realize the the dimensional significance of what has happened here?

What was the form of the shadow I saw in this picture, and it is a human form. Now we know, that for any shadow to be cast it must have a form in which to cast of itself and behind that form?

Well now I have seen things one way and I have seen them in another. From the internal world a light shines and the forms is its ideas, and in the world, what is form?

Not knowing where this picture came from, I am struggling to find it somewhere. I have seen it before. I just cannot make heads or tales of it until.......The Universe in a Nutshell by Stephen Hawking popped into mind:) Page 198

Besides the picture that arose in my mind, is the following wording. I will highlight what is extremely important for me to remember, as it has congealed the problematic feature of language of gravitatinal waves and how this language must be turned around to give it the discripion of the event it is describing.


Holography

Holography encodes the information in a region of space onto a surface one dimension lower. It sees to be the property of gravity, as is shown by the fact that the area of th event horizon measures the number of internal states of a blackhole, holography would be a one-to-one correspondance between states in our four dimensional world and states in higher diensions. From a positivist viewpoint, one cannot distinquish which discritption is more fundamental. Pg 198, The Universe in Nutshell, by Stephen Hawking.


See, I am in the world of form, and in the world of form the perspective are real to me. From every point source, Inverse Square law here, many things become applicable. But imagine a point source that is internal?

The higher dimensional significance of the world I am saying is beyond the forms we are accustom too. For me to speak of form then, and what have we done here but reduced the higher dimensional signficance of the fifth dimension down into four:)Lowered it one dimension.

The point source is a logical construct for me to discribe the events of the fifth dimension as they arise through the point source within. The present is the point from which that point source is considered. The future, is somehow condensed through that point, and what expands in the human mind, is the idea, like that picture:)

Hope it made sense. The ray of creation in a pyramidal construct(light cone), is a past event. This is what I have surmized in the beginning when I drew the diagrams for Jon.

In order to get to that point, it requires us to consider the very vibrational nature of energy and how it would have related to the matters. To get to that point we must climb internally, and reocgnize the emotive quality experience highlights for us. I have not elevated the destructive nature of a very confined world, but the necessary recognition of the one, in which time can move very fast:)

I know it is a post that sits outside the realm of the acceptable, but I have explained a basic process that is a inherent right to each of us.

Sol

Bizarrely enough, i've just been given the Universe in a nutshell by a friend, page 198 you say...

[img]http://www.closertogod.net/stuff/Holo.jpg[/img]

I read the Brane New World chapter first, on your recomendation, I feel i am better placed to converse with you now. After reading your other posts i too have been seeing images in my head, and mostly the Platos cave image. It struck me that our knowledge, as it builds is just going round in circles.

For Holography to be what Plato predicted centuries ago is quite laughable. What was that quote about newton realising part of Einsteins General theory of relativity...

Laz,

Amazing picture isn' it.

http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/met...ages18/155.html The Pattern Now, is Future Time

If you go back and look at the analogy I placed of the light cone, look at how the future, is transmitted through a point and like the ray of creation(you can call it Pascal's triangle, for it demonstrates how the realities can be described in one of a couple of ways.

Now the bottom part of that light cone, is the past. That point, is you now, anything you decide, comes after. Yet in the future there are many probabilities, and if we know what we are doing "now" we can know what the probabilties will be?

In the understanding of this diagram http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/met...sages18/19.html the subconscious, would have been opening to a wider probability. Dreams make use of that space, and allow us to see the future. Go past the subconcious realm and you move to a wider probability(superconscious)?

At that point, choice(our will) helps us decide how we will pay attention, to the thoughts we hold in focus, for in any position(belief) the probabilites funnelled through "now", wil become the resulting choices you have made.

The thing is, Felix Klein has encapsule the geometires and in simplicity of cosmology, and in human consciousness, topology and continuity, become real things. Very dynamical.

The Klein bottles are interesting thing to look at. How the inside(superconsciousness and the future) can become the outside(our past, our reality now)?

Brane states follow strick developement of GR. It starts off euclidean and ends up topological. You bypass Riemann and Non euclidean geometries to get to brane states. U(1) is the photon, and its one dimensinal characteristic is a line(longitudal) The first dimenison  and the fifth are connected, like a circle.

I tend to think of the probabilities, as opportunites in the synapse. Eccles gate?

Hope that made sense.

Sol

My god i am beginning to understand you

I still don't see your point though? Is the universe a hologram; a 4 dimensional skin of an 11 dimension bubble?

Do we exist inside the bubble on a dimension other than those on the skin?

Laz,

Just so I know where your coming form, what clicked in your mind to say that you might be understanding me?

Sol

Hello all:

I find the brain very interesting as well and I don't think we'll ever find some place in the brain that is responsible for the integration of things into a conscience experience...although I find it interesting how a lot of information seems to be "seemingly" left out (llike what the immune system is encountering, etc). On the other hand, I find it interesting that a lot of these "seemingly" out of conscience events can be affected by conscience effort or trained unconscience effort (another topic, another day).

Since the more a task is performed, the less "attention" you have to pay to doing the task, and as a result frees up "attention", you get the impression that "attention" is somehow in a sense consciousness and a higher brain function. We know the frontal cortex is involved with this to some degree but I'd be interested to know what other people's opinions on this are.

I think our brain must somehow be a distributed intelligence but the consciousness throws me off -- specifically since it appears that this elemenet acts in a way like a central control (or so it seems).

Does anyone remember who did the cat study where they severed the spinal cord just below the hindbrain and found that the cats bodies still walked even though they did not have access to the brain. Or the one where a cell was taught to "scream" for more cocaine?

All over the place today...


J

hello J,

welcome to our forum. Yes, it's amazing that a few billion neurons in the brain can give rise to our conscious experience. One of the key questions is, what sort of neuronal dynamical behavior gives rise to consciousness?

One can think of attention in terms of an allocation of limited resources. Also, there's the spotlight hypothesis and variations on the theme that would suggest that attention is related to degree of neuronal activity (and synchrony). The prefrontal cortex is likely involved, particularly area 46dr, or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. But of course individual cortical areas are invariably embedded within distributed networks of cortical and subcortical areas. It's plausible that other areas involved in an attention network could include certain intralaminar nuclei (of the thalamus), cingulate cortex, and perhaps also the ascending reticular activating system (ARAS) and various modulatory nuclei in the midbrain and brainstem.

But the question keeps arising, what is the structure or form of neuronal activity that gives rise to consciousness?..... it would seem that the field (of neuroscience) suffers from a lack of genuinely creative ideas related to answering this question, and of course, I blame myself too, for not coming up with detailed plausible answers or possible hypotheses (i.e., possible answers with more detail than simply saying that synchrony or neuronal activity are responsible for consciousness).

Anyway, enjoy the forum!

take care,
Shawn

[quote]Just so I know where your coming form, what clicked in your mind to say that you might be understanding me? [/quote]

You sound like you don't believe me?

I believe you are talking about a way of describing the concept of "the future is not set"

The idea that at any point in time, you have made a number of decisions that have gotten you here, and from here you can make any number of decisions to go forward. If you were to draw a diagram of it, it would look like two cones, one inverted on top of the other representing the decisions and their consequences in the past, leading to further choices and decisions in the future.

I still don't see that you are making a point though, perhaps you are just happily discussing the subject?


[quote]But the question keeps arising, what is the structure or form of neuronal activity that gives rise to consciousness?..... it would seem that the field (of neuroscience) suffers from a lack of genuinely creative ideas related to answering this question, and of course, I blame myself too, for not coming up with detailed plausible answers or possible hypotheses (i.e., possible answers with more detail than simply saying that synchrony or neuronal activity are responsible for consciousness).[/quote]

Shawn, where do you stand on the idea, that there is just not enough substance to the brain to contain consciousness?

Would you be prepared to entertain the idea that our consciousness exists on a different dimension and is not part of this 4-D world?

[quote author=Laz link=board=11;threadid=1891;start=0#msg13595 date=1063272637]
Shawn, where do you stand on the idea, that there is just not enough substance to the brain to contain consciousness?

Would you be prepared to entertain the idea that our consciousness exists on a different dimension and is not part of this 4-D world?

[/quote]


I'd be willing to entertain the idea to the extent that it's useful or has explanatory power (the usefulness of such ideas is sometimes questionable though). For almost as long as I can remember, I've been strongly inclined towards Identity theories that stipulate an identity (or isomorphism) between consciousness (our phenomenological experience) and neuronal activity and relations. And so the task becomes that of establishing the exact relation between phenomenological and neuronal processes. The goal being that once we understand the system (the brain and its processes), then we are in a position to control, manipulate, and enhance it, and thereby control, manipulate, and enhance our consciousness (and our being).

Good point, well made

This m-theory is all a little intangible, it almost requires a religious belief. I find it interesting because I'm trying to find the cross over point for science and religion, if such a thing exists.

hello J,

welcome to our forum.

Thanks!

Yes, it's amazing that a few billion neurons in the brain can give rise to our conscious experience. One of the key questions is, what sort of neuronal dynamical behavior gives rise to consciousness?
Exactly

One can think of attention in terms of an allocation of limited resources. Also, there's the spotlight hypothesis and variations on the theme that would suggest that attention is related to degree of neuronal activity (and synchrony). The prefrontal cortex is likely involved, particularly area 46dr, or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. But of course individual cortical areas are invariably embedded within distributed networks of cortical and subcortical areas. It's plausible that other areas involved in an attention network could include certain intralaminar nuclei (of the thalamus), cingulate cortex, and perhaps also the ascending reticular activating system (ARAS) and various modulatory nuclei in the midbrain and brainstem.

But the question keeps arising, what is the structure or form of neuronal activity that gives rise to consciousness?

How do we define conciousness? Is it being aware of our own existence or is it the opposite of subconcious or both? Are we concious when we sleep? For example, people integrate outside environmental events into dreams, which demonstrates some "awareness" but would that be concious, subconcious, or neither?

Like the cocktail phenomena or dichotic listening with respect to attention; the cocktail phenomena demonstrates our ability to tune in (spotlight) but if someone calls our name we are "aware." Same with dicotic listening, individuals integrate information from the non-attending ear because it makes more logical sense. Or does memory have a role in conciousness? HM, as an example is concious but he's not "concious/aware" of his life/learning post-hippocampus damage. If we only had implicit memory, would we still be concious just lacking the ability to explicate?

And I always get confused when other animals get brought in to the argument -- where do we draw the line of conciousness or do we?

Just throwing some thoughts out there...

..... it would seem that the field (of neuroscience) suffers from a lack of genuinely creative ideas related to answering this question, and of course, I blame myself too, for not coming up with detailed plausible answers or possible hypotheses (i.e., possible answers with more detail than simply saying that synchrony or neuronal activity are responsible for consciousness).

Anyway, enjoy the forum!

Thanks!

J

P.S. Not trying to hijake the thread...I just think some of these q's are relevant.

Laz,

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.ph...t&threadid=5603

I have to show stand alone posts so you understand that I am not speaking off the top of my head:)

The fuzzy nature of particle identification removes the brains function as a material organ?

What is this logic and how is it approached?

If the Holographical consideration is undertsood in a energy determination(brane wave:), then we have indeed understood the brains ability to generate consciousness?

Sol

Sol, it's okay to present ideas as your own.

You don't need to reference others always, i'm interested in what you have to say here and now, not what you said in response to someone else in another forum, or how your ideas tie in with some "named" scientist

Anyway i'm going to have knock this topic on the head as far as my contribution goes. I have a mission to complete ;D

Laz,

Think of the larger brain and the neuron connectors here.

Soft computer applicationshttp://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.ph...post&forumid=51

i CAME TO THIS FORUM BECUASE i MIGHT ENGAGE PEOPLE WHO UNDERTAND? Change the small i and we have somehow remove the ego. I have demonstrated my understanding of ego in transactional analysis link.

I have connected three forums now.

Srinivasa Ramanujan http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/met...ages18/180.html

They are concerned with the here and now.

I thought you understood my light cone analogy?

The past, each linked post, is part of the larger brain of the internet. How are you to realize what I am talking about, if I do not show a previous link. Are you psychic:)

Do you think you could tell me if I am wasting my time here in this forum?

Sol

Hello Sol,

I have followed all your links and have to confess that I do not understand the concepts.
Nonetheless, I can see that you are a sincere and deep thinker with ideas of your own to boot.
I can't add to your knowledge, and it appears that Laz would prefer to go up 'the ladder' one step at a time rather than be injected at rung 27.
By this I mean that when a new concept is introduced to the unknowing, they will usually [if they are interested in the topic] wish to be spoon fed with the background rather than have to search via links to get started [human nature].

I suspect that you are suffering from the major problem of web-communications, viz., the inability to have a chat [using voice] with your comrades.
Such a complicated topic does not lend itself to words and thoughts from delayed, distant people - at least that is my view.

Only you can decide if this site is serving your purposes at the moment - remember that members come and members go [I'm not referring to you] - you could come back tomorrow and find an expert in your field ready and waiting to discuss your ideas.
I do hope you stay with us!
Do you have any other interests, or are you locked onto this one topic?

Best regards, Bill.

Hello Bill:)

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.ph...t&threadid=5544

I guess that is indeed the great difficulty is to know where to begin sometimes. In the language of mathematics, it is very plain for every mathematician to know what each is talking about, based on the language concept, and math being used.

Here in consciousness, it is very different. Yet the simple fact is, as we think, there is a basis to thought manifestation? Is relevance at such weak scales of energy considerations, that I have endeavored to try and make sense of this.

Now indeed I have mapped out what I think is the basis of such thought, that to have presented the idea of scale here in energy determinations, speaks to what is capable in the gravity of all thought manifestations.

Now just so you do not think I have lost it, I will say a couple of names here to point in the direction of my understanding, is very weak in regards to the science of consciousness,. Is why I am here. To get better educated and present some of my ideas.

They may all be wrong, yet it is with that sincerity that you have seen in my work that I endeavor. No rewards other then understanding myself and others in the scheme of things. There is no motivation for recognition or money, as I take care of myself and my wife, outside of any educative fields. In fact I am a simple labourer who is struggling to understand life.

So the work then here is to see, if what can be explained in the physics of, has some value in the theoretical developenment of consciousness, that we might say indeed, the matters with which we are dealing, speak to the effect of consciousness on some level.

I must say that I look at the manifestatin of the matters and the relationships as condensive features of consciousnes, in those matters, and that the energy sits and radiates outside the matters. That is speculation of course.

Penfield and Persinger are two names, to which I draw your attention to let you know that I have looked at these and with one of them, you know, transactional analysis was based. That we could have evolved from some reptialian brain to our current state leads me to believe that what sits outside in the field is directing the evolution of the brain.

Your thoughts would be appreciated on how I should approach this?

Sol

hello Sol,

I am interested in the topic you are researching, but know nothing about string theory.
In an attempt to change this situation I am now mirroring http://superstringtheory.com

It will be a while before I can comment on my ability to comprehend it all [I'm taking two weeks vacation soon].

It doesn't matter what your background is you know. If you can comprehend the topic in which you are interested, you may just have the right brain structure which can recognise its own workings, and thereby add to the knowledgebase of ideas and hopefully the WHOLE answer! I know many people seek the fundamental concepts to explain the phenomenon of conshusness! Keep up with your search; try more websites by using search engines like Google which I recommend. And enjoy the journey - that is the most important thing!
Bye for now [Iv'e downloaded 6megs of data so far!]

Bill,

It is a lot to absorb:) Worse yet, how does one integrate all that into the human brain?

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.ph...t&threadid=5871 Kaku helps:)

http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/dua...sages9/124.html String Nature

Think of the brain as a condensive feature. Then think of the brain as a bubble and how we would see the movement of the energies in the neuronic functions of the brain. We use MRI's to help us see the dynamics in the matters, yet what is the brain doing as it functions in those interatcion in a bubble state analogy?

I use the moon(its iron core and the effects of gravity variations in a global perspecive) and the sun( its solar flares) as examples of what happens when Inverse Square law is applied. The brain is no different in its complicated interactions to reveal, that it to is defining its role, in a global perspective

As a coupling of all those neurons, and complexties of information, how simple it would be to have a picture that arises in mind, and low and behold we are explaining a attribtue of the brains function? Yet realistically(?) there are things going on outside the brain's surface?

Resonance plays a important function not only in our brain wave determinations, but in our thought constructions as well. Penfield stimulated the areas of the brain and mapped them, yet what happens when Persinger is able to stimulate the brain in another way?

Sol

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.ph...t&threadid=5992

The Condensive Feature of the Human Brain?

If we understood the applications of resonance in MRI, what value could we have ever ascertained in the undertanding of the psychology, and in computer analysis of Venn logic and tranactional Analysis, we are given a understanding of soft computerization software demonstrations in Fuzzy logic.

The Fifth Element is a undertanding that is developing of the movement of energies outside the matter defined states, that are directly associated to gravitational considerations.

Becuase I am demonstarting, things going on at a much larger scale(cosmologiy), I am also saying that these effects of consciousness are taking place right outside the brain as well. Why Persinger is brought into the picture.

Also too, if one was to explore the relationship between isometric valuation of the atom, one would also undertand this relationship and dynamics going on in the cosmos.


One has to undertand this relationship with atom structure although being fuzzy, is defining states of the matters for us.





On a cosmological scale, this interaction becomes defined in how we see this relationships at such small levels play out on the much larger.


One has to undertand this relationship with atom structure although being fuzzy, is defining states of the matters for us.


Rydberg Atoms http://www.amherst.edu/~rlolders/stars2/is...somorphism.html

Sol

http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/met...ages18/259.html

How in the heck is one suppose to figure ou what dimension is and what is just oustide the brain. If we consider the brain as a condensive feature then we know it had to condensive from something?

How absurd, that the matter could go through a evolutinary state not only in cell division and neuronical developement, and yet we speak of consiousness as existing apart from such a state? That would mean we would be dead.

But if such a state inthe CMB could have existed and is symmetrical, then what are our manifest states of consciousness?

Sol

I thought the thing about the mice's brains was to test how memory works, it showed that memory does not exist in one area of the brain that it has to do with decoding and many brain cells or synapses... that when they removed part of the mouse's brain he was still able to run the maze and remember where to go.....
I didn't read all of these replies because I don't have the time.. however... I did once sign up or register to this site last year...i only posted once or twice....but it is an excellent site. I used the logo for an assignment in computer graphics... it's still hanging on my wall...hope you're not mad. and it wasn't anything official.. just for my enjoyment...lol

Excuse the bumping but something that is relevant was not mentioned here.

This image agrees with the hypothesis of this experiment.

http://gargles. net/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/WindowsLiveWriter/Braincell_5D5A/image%7B0%7D%5B3%5D.png

Suven Jinushi, this posting precedes yours:
http://braintechsci.blogspot.com/2006/08/u...neural-net.html

and basically states that the large-scale structure of the universe and the micro-structure of nerve cells look alike; i.e., they are both reticular.

It seems that both theories seem to somehow intervene. If this is true, how ccould we reach the dimension beyond reality?