Notices
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: My Theory on Thoughts, Memory and Consciousness

  1. #1 My Theory on Thoughts, Memory and Consciousness 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Actually, i base many of these things on the general scope of how consciosness is viewed today from a relativistic and quantum viewpoint; but more to this is that i am creating this hypothesis on an arguement that was raised between myelf and Kalster, rather more of a heated-debate rather than an arguement. It seems that our definitions clash when trying to interpret: A material thought.

    My definition of corporeality, is an embodiedment which is physical. A single thought i argue then cannot be material itself. However, since the human brain is a complicated statistical network of particles, and a less complicated network of molecules and neurons, the idea of neglecting a completely material theory of the working ''mind'' (and all that goes with it) maybe be an error. You simply could not have a complete material self, when dealing with the inner experience itself.

    The entropy of classical systems, such as nuerons will displace over time. On a more modern approach, we attempt to envision the world unto which neurons are built, and that is a system of electrons and nuetrons and protons... and give or take the possible existence of biomagnetic particles.

    Like any entropic picture, things become more disordered or ordered over a period of time. The latter would suggest a ''decrease in entropy'' whilst the primer suggests something become more ''disordered'' over some period or integration of time.

    Information contained within particles can only become more disordered in a controlled environment if indeed they are to follow quantum rules. The first is, we need a large collection. It is quite safe to assume particles, rather the mind boggling amount of which the brain is collectively made of. The second is that the knowledge of the human cannot be stored intuitively within some order of the brain but rather can be the seat upon which we ''experience'' anything at all. Let me explain:

    It is true that ''conciousness'' as we know it is some kind of field itself around matter. This not my own speculation, but rather Doctor Wolf. But from this, one can see that consciousness does indeed require matter, but it certainly does not suggest consciousness is a material body itself. Somehow, the ethereal self of consciousness cannot be attained wiily-nilly by hoping to extract matter from the brain (1)...

    To have a ''memory'' which is also a type of information, we first need to have experience. Experience is something which we attribute to knowing an event has happened, and somehow we know this through our mere observations. These events then process as memory, depending on how ''aware'' we are on these events. This memory is then the product of a chain of events which make a logical order we have come to call a ''forward directionality'' in the ''psychological arrow of time.''(2) So, just like we are to accept in physics and relativity that you cannot have space or time seperate, nor can you have a spacetime with matter and its primal form energy, i too state you cannot have a conscious being without some kind of unfolding of events that are displayed to the recording observer as memory. A consciosness without memory, is no conciousness at all.

    This is the ethereal nature upon which the subliminal self has seperated it's entropy to the laws which must abide the statistical entropy of physics. We certainly experience ''an increase'' in memory, which would salute the existence of an entropy of knowledge concerning the human being. But as stated before, the entropy in such a system would decrease if we have a ''loss'' of knowledge. Normally a loss in knowledge in any system must mean a decrease in the entropy of the system itself. But Kalster argued this is still something becoming more disordered, but i am positive he must be wrong. I will explain why.

    To measure entropy, you need at least something you can measure [the parts] in relative to the rest of the parts. If you have a container with a gas of gluons (3) for instance that displace over time, the only way to measure the displacement is by relatively ''relating'' the gluon parts to the rest of the subatomic particle parts. This is what is meant from a materialistic ''entropy''... but the entropy of memory is different.

    The human observer can compare the internal parts of memory to other internal parts, but because ultimately the brain ''needs'' to give up on many parts of the information we gain in a day... (and we have something like 60,000 thoughts in one year... (4)) then we are bound to loose our ability to compare tthoughts relative to each other, and thus the experience of entropy must decrease, whilst we are continuously increasing it by new thoughts. If the classical way to envision entropy was anything like this for the material/energetic compound of gluons we exampled, then it would be very strange indeed. Not only would we notice gluons disappearing, but we would also see gluons appearing as if from nowhere, and not always in a linear balance to the amount lost or gained. The relative issue of entropy would be best said then to exist as an oscillatory system. But since classical entropy does not work this way, the entropy of knowledge gained by the observer appears to be very specialized.

    It is specialized because it depends on how ability to compare thoughts, and how consciousness ''willingly'' gives up the need to hold on to specific information. In fact, it would be very hard to say that consciousness from this model would have more entropy in its system than that of lets say, several years ago, if you where not training the mind constantly to take in every minute peice of detail or even information we may come to use. You see, thoughts are not physical. They are ''brought'' into existence by the will of the observer on the ''platform of existence'' which is matter and energy, space and time. Whilst it is very noble of the scientist to think consciosness must be determined by a completely materialistic view, it does not answer ultimately for the mind-body expereince, or how the mind is unattainable in much the same way my thoughts yesterday might be lost in a great number of electrical signals, whilst no direct information is stored within a neuron, but it doesn't stop the concious being from actually ever knowing that event ever again...


    (1) - My arguement here is that there are undoubtably cases where lets say ''the creative'' part of the brain has been damaged which could loose a particular arrangment of memory which would suggest also undoubtably that memory is stored with neurons themselves. However, the cases i speak of can and do retrieve these ''memories'' some how, even if the information could be lost forever, so a completely material relation to the order of which we come to process thoughts is wrong.

    (2) - I've even postulated that one of the reasons why consciousness chose to work in this direction we all come to experience, is because it cannot work backwards, which is in direct comfllict with Doctor Hawkings notions that we would even remain aware of events in a time-reversed universe.

    (3) - A gluon is a subatomic particle of energy which binds the quarks together to form the nuclei of atoms.

    (4) - Doctor Wolf once jokingly said to me ''but who's counting?''


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: My Theory on Thoughts, Memory and Consciousness 
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    It is true that ''conciousness'' as we know it is some kind of field itself around matter. This not my own speculation, but rather Doctor Wolf.
    How does this being the opinion of "Doctor Wolf" make this more than speculation? Can you link to a source on this? You can take this as a general request for data on any assertions you make as fact. Hypotheses or speculation, no problem. But your starting assumptions or indeed anything assumed to be true which is not common knowledge needs to be backed up.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: My Theory on Thoughts, Memory and Consciousness 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    It is true that ''conciousness'' as we know it is some kind of field itself around matter. This not my own speculation, but rather Doctor Wolf.
    How does this being the opinion of "Doctor Wolf" make this more than speculation? Can you link to a source on this? You can take this as a general request for data on any assertions you make as fact. Hypotheses or speculation, no problem. But your starting assumptions or indeed anything assumed to be true which is not common knowledge needs to be backed up.
    yeh, sure. I agree, i should have given the direction to the source. For anyone wondering about this claim, get the book ''Mind into Matter,'' or obtain it from a local library. In this book, he explains how consciousness is like a field which surround matter itself.

    :-D

    ps. You can also reach hi website for details - just ask him personally of the fact i brought up to him in person:

    http://www.fredalanwolf.com/page5.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Doesn't he have any actual peer reviewed papers on the subject? If not, why do you think that is? Do you think it is reasonable to expect us to buy a book if we want to confirm something you state as fact?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: My Theory on Thoughts, Memory and Consciousness 
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    It is true that ''conciousness'' as we know it is some kind of field itself around matter. This not my own speculation, but rather Doctor Wolf.
    How does this being the opinion of "Doctor Wolf" make this more than speculation? Can you link to a source on this? You can take this as a general request for data on any assertions you make as fact. Hypotheses or speculation, no problem. But your starting assumptions or indeed anything assumed to be true which is not common knowledge needs to be backed up.
    yeh, sure. I agree, i should have given the direction to the source. For anyone wondering about this claim, get the book ''Mind into Matter,'' or obtain it from a local library. In this book, he explains how consciousness is like a field which surround matter itself.

    :-D

    ps. You can also reach hi website for details - just ask him personally of the fact i brought up to him in person:

    http://www.fredalanwolf.com/page5.htm
    The guy's own website does not count as empirical evidence of anything other than that he has a website and some ideas. Peer-reviewed data please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: My Theory on Thoughts, Memory and Consciousness 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    It is true that ''conciousness'' as we know it is some kind of field itself around matter. This not my own speculation, but rather Doctor Wolf.
    How does this being the opinion of "Doctor Wolf" make this more than speculation? Can you link to a source on this? You can take this as a general request for data on any assertions you make as fact. Hypotheses or speculation, no problem. But your starting assumptions or indeed anything assumed to be true which is not common knowledge needs to be backed up.
    yeh, sure. I agree, i should have given the direction to the source. For anyone wondering about this claim, get the book ''Mind into Matter,'' or obtain it from a local library. In this book, he explains how consciousness is like a field which surround matter itself.

    :-D

    ps. You can also reach hi website for details - just ask him personally of the fact i brought up to him in person:

    http://www.fredalanwolf.com/page5.htm
    The guy's own website does not count as empirical evidence of anything other than that he has a website and some ideas. Peer-reviewed data please.
    There is nothing peer reviewed in this article. however, that does not stop an experienced PhD to make a book with exactly the knowledge i cited. Please do not be specific in this area... consciousness is a very difficult area to even cite, let alone prove.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Doesn't he have any actual peer reviewed papers on the subject? If not, why do you think that is? Do you think it is reasonable to expect us to buy a book if we want to confirm something you state as fact?
    His book are his life work. ask him for citations please, because it must be obvious that it is a personal exploration into the laws of physics and those which describe cosnciousness.

    I hold what he said was true, just simply ask him what evidence he has, because as a current talker with him in the past, i have used all the time i can extract from him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: My Theory on Thoughts, Memory and Consciousness 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    It is true that ''conciousness'' as we know it is some kind of field itself around matter. This not my own speculation, but rather Doctor Wolf.
    How does this being the opinion of "Doctor Wolf" make this more than speculation? Can you link to a source on this? You can take this as a general request for data on any assertions you make as fact. Hypotheses or speculation, no problem. But your starting assumptions or indeed anything assumed to be true which is not common knowledge needs to be backed up.
    yeh, sure. I agree, i should have given the direction to the source. For anyone wondering about this claim, get the book ''Mind into Matter,'' or obtain it from a local library. In this book, he explains how consciousness is like a field which surround matter itself.

    :-D

    ps. You can also reach hi website for details - just ask him personally of the fact i brought up to him in person:

    http://www.fredalanwolf.com/page5.htm
    The guy's own website does not count as empirical evidence of anything other than that he has a website and some ideas. Peer-reviewed data please.
    There is nothing peer reviewed in this article. however, that does not stop an experienced PhD to make a book with exactly the knowledge i cited. Please do not be specific in this area... consciousness is a very difficult area to even cite, let alone prove.
    Might i also add, that this area of science is undetermined becuase of such a lack of investigation. The fact a PhD can come forward and mention these new predictions is pretty overwhelming. They cannot be based on pure assumption, nor of pure speculation when he has been working in this area for over 40 years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: My Theory on Thoughts, Memory and Consciousness 
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    There is nothing peer reviewed in this article. however, that does not stop an experienced PhD to make a book with exactly the knowledge i cited. Please do not be specific in this area... consciousness is a very difficult area to even cite, let alone prove.
    Books are not the way that new research is presented to the scientific community. Primary research papers are. We can't get access to this book either, so if it contains empirical evidence (ie the results of experimentation and observation) then please detail that here. Otherwise I think this thread would be more at home in Pseudoscience.

    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Might i also add, that this area of science is undetermined becuase of such a lack of investigation. The fact a PhD can come forward and mention these new predictions is pretty overwhelming. They cannot be based on pure assumption, nor of pure speculation when he has been working in this area for over 40 years.
    There are plenty of PhDs who claim that the world was created in 6 days by God. Having a PhD is not a badge of credibility or intelligence. It's a sign that you can survive 3 years of study whilst living primarily on pasta.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: My Theory on Thoughts, Memory and Consciousness 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    There is nothing peer reviewed in this article. however, that does not stop an experienced PhD to make a book with exactly the knowledge i cited. Please do not be specific in this area... consciousness is a very difficult area to even cite, let alone prove.
    Books are not the way that new research is presented to the scientific community. Primary research papers are. We can't get access to this book either, so if it contains empirical evidence (ie the results of experimentation and observation) then please detail that here. Otherwise I think this thread would be more at home in Pseudoscience.

    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Might i also add, that this area of science is undetermined becuase of such a lack of investigation. The fact a PhD can come forward and mention these new predictions is pretty overwhelming. They cannot be based on pure assumption, nor of pure speculation when he has been working in this area for over 40 years.
    There are plenty of PhDs who claim that the world was created in 6 days by God. Having a PhD is not a badge of credibility or intelligence. It's a sign that you can survive 3 years of study whilst living primarily on pasta.
    I find that condescending next to the amount of research myself or even you conbined can comapare.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: My Theory on Thoughts, Memory and Consciousness 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    There is nothing peer reviewed in this article. however, that does not stop an experienced PhD to make a book with exactly the knowledge i cited. Please do not be specific in this area... consciousness is a very difficult area to even cite, let alone prove.
    Books are not the way that new research is presented to the scientific community. Primary research papers are. We can't get access to this book either, so if it contains empirical evidence (ie the results of experimentation and observation) then please detail that here. Otherwise I think this thread would be more at home in Pseudoscience.

    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Might i also add, that this area of science is undetermined becuase of such a lack of investigation. The fact a PhD can come forward and mention these new predictions is pretty overwhelming. They cannot be based on pure assumption, nor of pure speculation when he has been working in this area for over 40 years.
    There are plenty of PhDs who claim that the world was created in 6 days by God. Having a PhD is not a badge of credibility or intelligence. It's a sign that you can survive 3 years of study whilst living primarily on pasta.
    Psuedoscience... Psuedoscience??? What craziness are you talking about, i am not proclaiming a psuedoscience! I have given a direct cause for my thoughts. They are not psuedo as purely imaginal or made up in any sense....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: My Theory on Thoughts, Memory and Consciousness 
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    I find that condescending next to the amount of research myself or even you conbined can comapare.
    What does the amount of research either of us has done have to do with the matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Psuedoscience... Psuedoscience??? What craziness are you talking about, i am not proclaiming a psuedoscience! I have given a direct cause for my thoughts. They are not psuedo as purely imaginal or made up in any sense....
    The starting assumptions that you are making don't appear to be based on empirical evidence. If you can't show that you are starting from an evidenced-based foundation in your thinking then I'm sorry to say that what you are detailing is not in fact science at all. All elements of a scientific model must either be tested or testable.

    So, I think this has gone on long enough and I am trying to be patient. You have one more post to start showing me evidence before I move this thread to Pseudoscience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Re: My Theory on Thoughts, Memory and Consciousness 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    I find that condescending next to the amount of research myself or even you conbined can comapare.
    What does the amount of research either of us has done have to do with the matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Psuedoscience... Psuedoscience??? What craziness are you talking about, i am not proclaiming a psuedoscience! I have given a direct cause for my thoughts. They are not psuedo as purely imaginal or made up in any sense....
    The starting assumptions that you are making don't appear to be based on empirical evidence. If you can't show that you are starting from an evidenced-based foundation in your thinking then I'm sorry to say that what you are detailing is not in fact science at all. All elements of a scientific model must either be tested or testable.

    So, I think this has gone on long enough and I am trying to be patient. You have one more post to start showing me evidence before I move this thread to Pseudoscience.
    If you don't mind, i will answer later. I am a bit buisy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: My Theory on Thoughts, Memory and Consciousness 
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    I find that condescending next to the amount of research myself or even you conbined can comapare.
    What does the amount of research either of us has done have to do with the matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Psuedoscience... Psuedoscience??? What craziness are you talking about, i am not proclaiming a psuedoscience! I have given a direct cause for my thoughts. They are not psuedo as purely imaginal or made up in any sense....
    The starting assumptions that you are making don't appear to be based on empirical evidence. If you can't show that you are starting from an evidenced-based foundation in your thinking then I'm sorry to say that what you are detailing is not in fact science at all. All elements of a scientific model must either be tested or testable.

    So, I think this has gone on long enough and I am trying to be patient. You have one more post to start showing me evidence before I move this thread to Pseudoscience.
    If you don't mind, i will answer later. I am a bit buisy.
    There's no time limit, just a post limit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Re: My Theory on Thoughts, Memory and Consciousness 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    I find that condescending next to the amount of research myself or even you conbined can comapare.
    What does the amount of research either of us has done have to do with the matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Psuedoscience... Psuedoscience??? What craziness are you talking about, i am not proclaiming a psuedoscience! I have given a direct cause for my thoughts. They are not psuedo as purely imaginal or made up in any sense....
    The starting assumptions that you are making don't appear to be based on empirical evidence. If you can't show that you are starting from an evidenced-based foundation in your thinking then I'm sorry to say that what you are detailing is not in fact science at all. All elements of a scientific model must either be tested or testable.

    So, I think this has gone on long enough and I am trying to be patient. You have one more post to start showing me evidence before I move this thread to Pseudoscience.
    If you don't mind, i will answer later. I am a bit buisy.
    There's no time limit, just a post limit.
    Move this then. let's see the ego of all times past.

    Let us see you move this with respect to the situation at hand, because if you do, i will not post here again. I gave my respects to this a long time ago, with a lot of respect also to similar functional thoughts which are from a PhD.

    But hear me out. Move it, and i will not be here. There was a difference here at this place, but obviously i was wrong?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: My Theory on Thoughts, Memory and Consciousness 
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Move this then. let's see the ego of all times past.

    Let us see you move this with respect to the situation at hand, because if you do, i will not post here again. I gave my respects to this a long time ago, with a lot of respect also to similar functional thoughts which are from a PhD.

    But hear me out. Move it, and i will not be here. There was a difference here at this place, but obviously i was wrong?
    This is a science forum. That means that at least some of your assertions must be based on some empirical evidence. If you are unable or unwilling to provide such evidence then what you are posting is either speculation or pseudoscience. I'm sorry if this angers you or will convince you not to return, but this forum is for the airing of new scientific ideas and a standard must be maintained.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 Re: My Theory on Thoughts, Memory and Consciousness 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames

    The entropy of classical systems, such as nuerons will displace over time. On a more modern approach, we attempt to envision the world unto which neurons are built, and that is a system of electrons and nuetrons and protons... and give or take the possible existence of biomagnetic particles.
    Well, a single piece of stored information will have a lot of neutrons, electrons, and protons involved, just like any physical object. It's not like one particular memory can associated with any one particular electron.

    You're not necessarily working at the quantum level just because you're working with information.



    Like any entropic picture, things become more disordered or ordered over a period of time. The latter would suggest a ''decrease in entropy'' whilst the primer suggests something become more ''disordered'' over some period or integration of time.

    Information contained within particles can only become more disordered in a controlled environment if indeed they are to follow quantum rules. The first is, we need a large collection. It is quite safe to assume particles, rather the mind boggling amount of which the brain is collectively made of. The second is that the knowledge of the human cannot be stored intuitively within some order of the brain but rather can be the seat upon which we ''experience'' anything at all. Let me explain:
    New order can emerge to replace the old, as long as new energy is flowing in from somewhere. That's why a burned field, with very few life forms in it, can grow into a lush jungle, if the right plant seeds fall there, and it gets enough sunlight.

    Your body meets this requirement. It's constantly taking in new nutrients from which new orderly systems can be fabricated to replace the old ones that suffer from entropy.



    It is true that ''conciousness'' as we know it is some kind of field itself around matter. This not my own speculation, but rather Doctor Wolf. But from this, one can see that consciousness does indeed require matter, but it certainly does not suggest consciousness is a material body itself. Somehow, the ethereal self of consciousness cannot be attained wiily-nilly by hoping to extract matter from the brain (1)...
    Hmmm..... now we're really talking metaphysics. What definition of "consciousness" are you working from?




    To have a ''memory'' which is also a type of information, we first need to have experience. Experience is something which we attribute to knowing an event has happened, and somehow we know this through our mere observations. These events then process as memory, depending on how ''aware'' we are on these events. This memory is then the product of a chain of events which make a logical order we have come to call a ''forward directionality'' in the ''psychological arrow of time.''(2) So, just like we are to accept in physics and relativity that you cannot have space or time seperate, nor can you have a spacetime with matter and its primal form energy, i too state you cannot have a conscious being without some kind of unfolding of events that are displayed to the recording observer as memory. A consciosness without memory, is no conciousness at all.
    This is also true of artificially intelligent computers. Many chess AI's are able to learn from past experience playing chess, and their skills actually improve after they play more games.

    Are you going to apply this "primal form of energy" stuff to them as well?


    This is the ethereal nature upon which the subliminal self has seperated it's entropy to the laws which must abide the statistical entropy of physics. We certainly experience ''an increase'' in memory, which would salute the existence of an entropy of knowledge concerning the human being. But as stated before, the entropy in such a system would decrease if we have a ''loss'' of knowledge. Normally a loss in knowledge in any system must mean a decrease in the entropy of the system itself. But Kalster argued this is still something becoming more disordered, but i am positive he must be wrong. I will explain why.
    You mean an increase, right?

    Increased entropy means there is less order. Decreased entropy means there is more order, or you're losing it slower.



    To measure entropy, you need at least something you can measure [the parts] in relative to the rest of the parts. If you have a container with a gas of gluons (3) for instance that displace over time, the only way to measure the displacement is by relatively ''relating'' the gluon parts to the rest of the subatomic particle parts. This is what is meant from a materialistic ''entropy''... but the entropy of memory is different.

    The human observer can compare the internal parts of memory to other internal parts, but because ultimately the brain ''needs'' to give up on many parts of the information we gain in a day... (and we have something like 60,000 thoughts in one year... (4)) then we are bound to loose our ability to compare tthoughts relative to each other, and thus the experience of entropy must decrease, whilst we are continuously increasing it by new thoughts. If the classical way to envision entropy was anything like this for the material/energetic compound of gluons we exampled, then it would be very strange indeed. Not only would we notice gluons disappearing, but we would also see gluons appearing as if from nowhere, and not always in a linear balance to the amount lost or gained. The relative issue of entropy would be best said then to exist as an oscillatory system. But since classical entropy does not work this way, the entropy of knowledge gained by the observer appears to be very specialized.
    And what's to stop us from suffering both kinds of loss?

    Certainly loss due to the need to make room for new information by deleting old information is the dominant cause of forgetfulness, but that doesn't logically guarantee that the other must be nonexistent.

    There's nothing about the one being present, that logically contradicts the other being present as well.

    It is specialized because it depends on how ability to compare thoughts, and how consciousness ''willingly'' gives up the need to hold on to specific information. In fact, it would be very hard to say that consciousness from this model would have more entropy in its system than that of lets say, several years ago, if you where not training the mind constantly to take in every minute peice of detail or even information we may come to use. You see, thoughts are not physical. They are ''brought'' into existence by the will of the observer on the ''platform of existence'' which is matter and energy, space and time. Whilst it is very noble of the scientist to think consciosness must be determined by a completely materialistic view, it does not answer ultimately for the mind-body expereince, or how the mind is unattainable in much the same way my thoughts yesterday might be lost in a great number of electrical signals, whilst no direct information is stored within a neuron, but it doesn't stop the concious being from actually ever knowing that event ever again...
    I have to go back to computers again. If a computer AI recognizes that it's beginning to run out of memory, and starts deleting old, or less important files in order to make room for new information coming in, that also might be seen as an act of "willingly" giving up the need to hold onto information.

    Sometimes, in computing, a file that seems to have been fully deleted turns out to be recoverable. When you empty the "recycle bin" in windows, the computer doesn't actually delete that information. It just forgets where to find it. A skilled hacker could still recover it. It's only after that section of your hard drive actually gets overwritten with new information that it's truly lost.



    (1) - My arguement here is that there are undoubtably cases where lets say ''the creative'' part of the brain has been damaged which could loose a particular arrangment of memory which would suggest also undoubtably that memory is stored with neurons themselves. However, the cases i speak of can and do retrieve these ''memories'' some how, even if the information could be lost forever, so a completely material relation to the order of which we come to process thoughts is wrong.
    The trouble is that we don't know whether this really happens or not. It might be that you do like what I was saying about emptying the "recycle bin" in windows.

    You might temporarily forget where a piece of information is stored, but then find it again.


    (2) - I've even postulated that one of the reasons why consciousness chose to work in this direction we all come to experience, is because it cannot work backwards, which is in direct comfllict with Doctor Hawkings notions that we would even remain aware of events in a time-reversed universe.
    This is more fun to discuss.

    It may be that time has no "forward" or "backward" except what we assign to it.

    The way time seems to flow from our perspective right now is "forward" to us, just like how our perception of "up" is based on which way gravity is pulling us.


    (3) - A gluon is a subatomic particle of energy which binds the quarks together to form the nuclei of atoms.

    (4) - Doctor Wolf once jokingly said to me ''but who's counting?''
    So he's someone you know personally?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    13
    Please forgive my ignorance of the matter, but how can one prove the process of how consciousness begins? I'm fairly clear on the biological processes (and by-products) of thought formation, but how is a thought born in the first place? If anyone can provide a reputable paper on this matter, I would be greatly appreciative, and a bit more enlightened.
    I think...therefore, I think I am.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •