User Avatar Image

Doodo's Musings

posted by doodo! on - last edited - Viewed by 5.3K users

Why when experiencing life dos the brain function with certain brain waves? How does it select those types of waves, what is the process behind this? I heard it's chemical response? In a healthy brain scan, they know what to look for...these waves light up on a scan like Christmas day.

Could a brain function using different waves for different activities than our average human brain selects? Are these waves truly ideal, for experiences, for reality, for these activities they are tied to? Must it be that way?

Is the brain ultimately a receptor for the layers of reality that it filters? How accurate is it, is it all entirely objective? Is it the only form of experience, reading these layers? Is it true observation, do we make a true, indisputable connection to reality?

Do these waves make a true connection to "reality" are their similar receiving waves outside of our human bodies? What is the universe made up of? Are we connected? Is it a issue of dimension?...??
Do our bodies, minds, brains, make waves that are actually on the same level as the objective plains of reality, existence?


These brain waves, are only from a impartially working, developed brain. The true brain power, the true evolution, creation of brain isn't truly present.Ultimately, we may not be connected to a truer, more comprehensive form of reality.


[quote=YA response]Brain "waves" are a name given to phenomena that are observed when measuring the brain via electroencephalographs and similar technology. The overall rise and fall of electrical potentials in localized areas. Because they're easily observed, they are useful in correlating brain states and brain function. But you shouldn't confuse them with how the brain works.

Similarly, an experienced mechanic could use the sound an engine makes to diagnose how it is operating. But we wouldn't ascribe the sound waves with any sort of utility to the engine. You could say that brain waves are indications of an overall pattern of activity within the brain.

The activity pattern is driven primarily through neural activity. That activity is signalling by discharge of an electrichemical potential in the neurons and by neurotransmitters. The activity at this scale is much faster and more fine-grained than simple chemical responses. But hormones and other chemicals do produce system-wide changes in activity as well.

So I might read your question as "could a brain function using different overall patterns for activities than our average human brain does". My opinion is yes and no.

Yes, it's entirely conceivable that a brain could exist that uses radically different techniques to process and use information that our brains do. In such a sense, the brain waves would be very different.

But at the same time, such a brain is not going to pop into existence in a human. Just like all the engines that Ford puts in cars work just about the same way, all human brains appear to have certain overall processing techniques that are very conservative (even if we don't understand the details of how the processing works).[/quote]

517 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • @doodo! said: What? :p



    Ace of cakes, Cake wars shows like that.

  • @coolsome said: Ace of cakes, Cake wars shows like that.

    I still don't understand the point you're trying to make? Cakes won't be lies? What's the argument here? Is there one? I don't want to sound condescending, so please don't take this that way but, I don't understand.

  • @doodo! said: I still don't understand the point you're trying to make? Cakes won't be lies? What's the argument here? Is there one? I don't want to sound condescending, so please don't take this that way but, I don't understand.



    Its a portal refrence.

  • @doodo! said: I still don't understand the point you're trying to make? Cakes won't be lies? What's the argument here? Is there one? I don't want to sound condescending, so please don't take this that way but, I don't understand.

    The_cake_is_a_lie.jpg?1262819199

  • @DAISHI said: To illustrate how perception may be wrong, especially concerning the 3rd dimension. Current theoretical postulates have put forth the idea that the third dimension we perceive as depth is an illusion created from a 2 dimensional existence that essentially bends. While we operate in three dimensions because that's how we perceive it, it may not be fundamentally correct to think of existence as being such.

    [quote=]The holographic principle is a property of quantum gravity and string theories which states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon. First proposed by Gerard 't Hooft, it was given a precise string-theory interpretation by Leonard Susskind[1] who combined his ideas with previous ones of 't Hooft and Charles Thorn.[2] In fact, as pointed out by Bousso,[3] Thorn observed in 1978 that string theory admits a lower dimensional description in which gravity emerges from it in what would now be called a holographic way.

    In a larger and more speculative sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional information structure "painted" on the cosmological horizon, such that the three dimensions we observe are only an effective description at macroscopic scales and at low energies. Cosmological holography has not been made mathematically precise, partly because the cosmological horizon has a finite area and grows with time.[4][5]

    The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics, which implies that the maximal entropy in any region scales with the radius squared, and not cubed as might be expected. In the case of a black hole, the insight was that the description of all the objects which have fallen into the hole, can be entirely contained in surface fluctuations of the event horizon. The holographic principle resolves the black hole information paradox within the framework of string theory.[6[/quote]

    The physical universe is widely seen to be composed of "matter" and "energy". In his 2003 article published in Scientific American magazine, Jacob Bekenstein summarized a current trend started by John Archibald Wheeler, which suggests scientists may "regard the physical world as made of information, with energy and matter as incidentals." Bekenstein quotes William Blake and asks whether the holographic principle implies that seeing "the world in a grain of sand," could be more than "poetic license".[12]

    [quote=]The holographic principle states that the entropy of ordinary mass (not just black holes) is also proportional to surface area and not volume; that volume itself is illusory and the universe is really a hologram which is isomorphic to the information "inscribed" on the surface of its boundary[/quote]

    _____________________________________

    Entropy, if considered as information (see information entropy), is measured in bits. The total quantity of bits is related to the total degrees of freedom of matter/energy.

    For a given energy in a given volume, there is an upper limit to the density of information (the Bekenstein bound) about the whereabouts of all the particles which compose matter in that volume, suggesting that matter itself cannot be subdivided infinitely many times and there must be an ultimate level of fundamental particles. As the degrees of freedom of a particle are the product of all the degrees of freedom of its sub-particles, were a particle to have infinite subdivisions into lower-level particles, then the degrees of freedom of the original particle must be infinite, violating the maximal limit of entropy density. The holographic principle thus implies that the subdivisions must stop at some level, and that the fundamental particle is a bit (1 or 0) of information.

    Now this I never thought of but there's a lot of logical sense in this.

  • I think I've almost come up with a good theory for possible spirit life, human experience observing spirit life. I think I'm on the verge of developing a decent theory. It's already there though. I'm sure of it.

    If I can sit here and just pull the conceptional focuses of these things out my arshe, I am sure that by now they have several solid theories on spirit life. I'm close, I think, to discovering within some of those conceptional focuses. Even if my understanding of the scientific validation isn't completely coherent, the general ideas still revolve around me, and around my thoughts.

  • When we respond to reality don't we believe in what we're responding to? Don't we believe that what we are reacting to is real as it influences and affects our reality? Aren't those beliefs? Do we consciously believe in reality? If we're interacting with reality then it must be real, we must believe in it, yes? Unless you want to get into deeper theories, like the holographic principle.

    How can you react towards something if you don't believe in any of the properties of what you're experiencing? Words, ideas, colors, sight, smell, taste, sound, science, math, knowledge, etc etc...


    Without even challenging, must we believe in reality simply because we respond to it?

    What if we had a whole other set of beliefs, ways of observing reality, would it change?

  • It's just a word to sum up loyalties and positive feelings. There's no such thing as love, is there?

    Definition:[quote=]–noun
    1.
    a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
    2.
    a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
    3.
    sexual passion or desire.
    4.
    a person toward whom love is felt; beloved person; sweetheart.
    5.
    (used in direct address as a term of endearment, affection, or the like): Would you like to see a movie, love?
    6.
    a love affair; an intensely amorous incident; amour.
    7.
    sexual intercourse; copulation.
    8.
    ( initial capital letter ) a personification of sexual affection, as Eros or Cupid.
    9.
    affectionate concern for the well-being of others: the love of one's neighbor.
    10.
    strong predilection, enthusiasm, or liking for anything: her love of books.
    11.
    the object or thing so liked: The theater was her great love.
    12.
    the benevolent affection of god for His creatures, or the reverent affection due from them to God.
    13.
    Chiefly Tennis . a score of zero; nothing.
    14.
    a word formerly used in communications to represent the letter L. [/quote]

    It's a concept, it's not a naturally occurring experience, it is resonating from a series of empirical events that proves absolute, true. by social norms. It's all about what's expected from others, what is observed in the pure, natural sensation of what the human experience is .

    Love is for a majority of group thinkers, for people who observe , "the obvious" of human nature, for everyone who is a normal and a kindred spirit of the human race. It's an experience first and second. It can't be put into true words because it only truly exists. We fabricate our existence both scientifically and historically. Romance, scientific labels, truths...

    It's a simple set of events that leads to this love realization that forges this bond. Some people aren't socially conditioned into these series of events, some people never start this process, this so called "love".

    It poses as a supposed essential part of human nature, experience. Yet, some people never meet any one, and will never feel that "love". Even though it's supposed to be so natural and obvious to us all.

    It doesn't exist.

    It's a series of events, a series of ideas behind a concept coming together to create a love-like image. And it isn't natural, possible for everyone.

    Why do you think some people need to use technology, web sites to find this "love"?

    Because it's a series of events, and they lack the social normality to adjust to these events!

    Love is a lie.

    It's a concept made in evolution, it's a social distinction intelligence has made, the evolved polite and mannered evolved form of a human being. It's the polite way of looking at wanting to procreate and screw some one to your liking.

    And within this structure we have evolved ideas, delusions of a series of events leading up to this, a evolved process that is love. Dating, socializing, movies, etc etc...

    It's evolutionary!

    Love is an umbrella to catch the rain above our heads because we are too dignified and proper, civilized to step back out into the storm!

This discussion has been closed.