well i mean well at least - "thinking in reverse" - my latest deep thought

If a question has a complex answer then I think you should look for a
different question.

C places a MINIMUM on light.

Consiousness is AT LEAST the process of a sensory pipeline. We don't react
to the pathways that are stimulated by our nerve endings - we react to the
pathways that have learned to react to them. Start there - don't just
straight to the soul.

We don't perceive folded space, and others don't either. We and others can
perceive eachothers space as folded. So what?

Everything is heirarcical, in terms of the way we have defined the term
itself. We see light, we see particles, and on up to ourselves. At each
level, there are less and less occurances. This tells me that - yes -
energy just morphs - but e=mc2 might be the MIN amount of energy.

Dark matter could just be the amount of energy put into the organization of
systems such as ourselves. Entropy is a real thing. So, if you mush up
some H, you get it to turn back to where it came from and release energy
equal to what it took to form it.

But what if you really "undid" a molecule of DNA? That might be orders of
magnitude greater. Nobody really knows what the strong nuclear force is,
right? Sorry if i'm wrong about that.

Finally, how the hell do people go their whole lives and not think about
this stuff?

Finally2, if multi-tiered computational system, which follows the rules of
one environment, which in turn creates a second environment to which the
second tier computes against, probably has a damn good shot at exhibiting
traits of consiousness. The idea that we are something more is not
warranted.

Aaron

PS: I post here from time to time because i know some people might read it
and go, "hmm" or "he's a crack head" - but i promise it is coming from real
thoughts, and it is usenet, so I hope y'all don't think i'm a spammer

On Sep 7, 11:33 pm, "Aaron" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:


Maximum. Light can go slower than c in a medium other than vacuum.


People have tried all sorts of ways to study the brain and
conciousness.


It tells me that if a person is made of x atoms, and there are y
people then the universe contains at least x * y atoms. So what?


Yes, it is the minimum energy an object can have - corresponding to
zero velocity, zero temperature, zero potential energy and finite
mass.


It would be huge because DNA molecules are huge, but the behaviour of
the strong force is understood well enough to predict the energy
contained in a molecule. The energy holding together the subatomic
particles of a DNA molecule is almost entirely the nuclear energy
which is well understood. Are you suggesting it would be significantly
diffferent from a similar sized molecule containing less information,
such as a polyethelyne? We still assume conservation of energy holds.


Many people do. Some of them even go so far as to study these subjects
because they find them so fascinating. Others just get locked into
their pet theory and go their whole lives moaning about why nobody
else has tested their iseas (see every second post in
alt.sci.physics). The questions you've raised have already been
studied heavily, you can search the literature if you don't trust how
it was done.


I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but it sounds like it can be
simulated on a PC. If a PC can have conciousness how will we detect
it? For that matter, how do you know that a person has conciousness?
I've met people who say animals don't but people do. I've met people
who say certain lower life forms don't, but higher life forms
(especially ones with brains) do. Most people would automatically say
that an electronic computer doesn't, no matter how much more
convincing it may be than a fish or a cockroach.

On Sep 7, 11:33 pm, "Aaron" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:


Maximum. Light can go slower than c in a medium other than vacuum.


People have tried all sorts of ways to study the brain and
conciousness.


It tells me that if a person is made of x atoms, and there are y
people then the universe contains at least x * y atoms. So what?


Yes, it is the minimum energy an object can have - corresponding to
zero velocity, zero temperature, zero potential energy and finite
mass.


It would be huge because DNA molecules are huge, but the behaviour of
the strong force is understood well enough to predict the energy
contained in a molecule. The energy holding together the subatomic
particles of a DNA molecule is almost entirely the nuclear energy
which is well understood. Are you suggesting it would be significantly
diffferent from a similar sized molecule containing less information,
such as a polyethelyne? We still assume conservation of energy holds.


Many people do. Some of them even go so far as to study these subjects
because they find them so fascinating. Others just get locked into
their pet theory and go their whole lives moaning about why nobody
else has tested their iseas (see every second post in
alt.sci.physics). The questions you've raised have already been
studied heavily, you can search the literature if you don't trust how
it was done.


I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but it sounds like it can be
simulated on a PC. If a PC can have conciousness how will we detect
it? For that matter, how do you know that a person has conciousness?
I've met people who say animals don't but people do. I've met people
who say certain lower life forms don't, but higher life forms
(especially ones with brains) do. Most people would automatically say
that an electronic computer doesn't, no matter how much more
convincing it may be than a fish or a cockroach.

This would be a top post but I removed the bottom.

Anyway thanks for the response. I can't decide if I should try to learn
more or think less or if i'm smarter than i think i am or dumber than i
think i'm not

Intuition tells me that an equation using calculus can never shed anything
more than an approximation of reality. Those approximations enable us to do
great things, but have absolutely nothing to do with the nature of our
shared reality.

This would be a top post but I removed the bottom.

Anyway thanks for the response. I can't decide if I should try to learn
more or think less or if i'm smarter than i think i am or dumber than i
think i'm not

Intuition tells me that an equation using calculus can never shed anything
more than an approximation of reality. Those approximations enable us to do
great things, but have absolutely nothing to do with the nature of our
shared reality.

Dear Aaron:

"Aaron" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:8jlEi.98450$[Only registered users see links. ]...
....

No, actually that its their point. They model very closely what
our "shared reality" does, due in large part to the efforts of
those who select / construct them. What they don't do is answer
"Why?"

David A. Smith

Dear Aaron:

"Aaron" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:8jlEi.98450$[Only registered users see links. ]...
....

No, actually that its their point. They model very closely what
our "shared reality" does, due in large part to the efforts of
those who select / construct them. What they don't do is answer
"Why?"

David A. Smith

On Sep 8, 1:10 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <[Only registered users see links. ]>
wrote:

Yep. Not like engineering equations that are often more complicated
and messy with lots terms and arbitrary constants. Those complicated
equations are usually the approximations, while the very simple ones
tend to be exact. I suppose because they're only describing a single
phenomenon.

Aaron, you could probably do with trying to clarify your thoughts a
lot more. Avoid thinking in buzzwords because those terms like
"entropy", "e=mc^2", "folded space" have precise meanings to the
people who thought of them, but they almost certainly don't correspond
to what you're thinking. You're seeing some connection and taking the
big leap in assuming there is more in common that that. But if you
write down your ideas precicely, you'd be forced to stop and think
"what properties does information share with energy?", "What is the
actual meaning of 'energy morphs' ?", "c a maximum speed of what?" or
whatever.

These are the sorts of things you can flesh out by argueing with
someone, but the risk there is its easy to build too strong an
emotional connection with your ideas. Or accidently start beliving
what they say and forget to think.

On Sep 8, 1:10 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <[Only registered users see links. ]>
wrote:

Yep. Not like engineering equations that are often more complicated
and messy with lots terms and arbitrary constants. Those complicated
equations are usually the approximations, while the very simple ones
tend to be exact. I suppose because they're only describing a single
phenomenon.

Aaron, you could probably do with trying to clarify your thoughts a
lot more. Avoid thinking in buzzwords because those terms like
"entropy", "e=mc^2", "folded space" have precise meanings to the
people who thought of them, but they almost certainly don't correspond
to what you're thinking. You're seeing some connection and taking the
big leap in assuming there is more in common that that. But if you
write down your ideas precicely, you'd be forced to stop and think
"what properties does information share with energy?", "What is the
actual meaning of 'energy morphs' ?", "c a maximum speed of what?" or
whatever.

These are the sorts of things you can flesh out by argueing with
someone, but the risk there is its easy to build too strong an
emotional connection with your ideas. Or accidently start beliving
what they say and forget to think.

Yes, I hear you there about just taking the surface knowledge I remember
from classes and then applying them.

It's driving me crazy though. I can't believe we know what light is. A
propogating disturbance in a vacuum seems to be the front running theory,
and geeze that just really sounds wierd to me.

I push on A.

A pushes on me.

OR -

I push on A.

A causes B.

B pulls on me.

Yes the former makes more sense because that's what we all observe, but I
see no reason to think it's not that latter. I think we stop asking
questions too fast and just always want to jump to using discovery to create
applications. Problem is, when you build something and you don't unerstand
it, then you are not controlling it and the consequences are completely
unpredictable.

It's like when we used those hydro carbons to bottle hair spray and then
they floated up and converted O3 to O2 - oops!

Every other drug the FDA approves is described as "the action of this
compound is unknown but it believed that....."

Well, ok - I take some of those and they do things but I nkow I would not be
typing this way right now if not for them. I also know I spend 25 years of
my life thinking of nothing but death and now I don't. OK sorry that was
TMI. Good night.