Brain formed first, then consciousness?

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

During evolution the brain formed first? and then consciousness?

[Sir Fred M. McNeill]

On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 18:41:51 -0800 (PST), "Ganesh J. Acharya"
<ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:

>During evolution the brain formed first? and then consciousness?

Need a "brain" to practice such 'self' deceitful
stories(representation) as "consciousness".
How is your liver doing? So much for "consciousness".
Deceit works, even 'self' deceit. Thus legacy representations
became genetic, like "consciousness" or
'color'.

[casey]

On Mar 4, 1:41 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> During evolution the brain formed first? and then consciousness?

The analogy I like to use is that we need a brain for consciousness
as we need a rain and the sun (or an equivalent set up) for a rainbow.
The rainbow comes into existence as the rain begins to fall.
Consciousness comes into existence as the brain evolves.
Of course we know how the rain and sun make a rainbow
although this wasn't always the case, but we don't know how
the brain does consciousness.

[casey]

On Mar 4, 3:30 pm, Sir Fred M. McNeill <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 18:41:51 -0800 (PST), "Ganesh J. Acharya"
>

> <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >During evolution the brain formed first? and then consciousness?
>
> Need a "brain" to practice such 'self' deceitful
> stories(representation) as "consciousness".
> How is your liver doing? So much for "consciousness".
> Deceit works, even 'self' deceit. Thus legacy representations
> became genetic, like "consciousness" or
> 'color'.

You imagine you have answered the question but I don't think you have.

Dennett says the mind is a trick, not real magic but stage magic,
and he may be right, but he hasn't explained how the trick is done.

Calling it self deceit is not an explanation without being able
to show how the self deceit works.

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Monday, March 4, 2013 11:31:01 AM UTC+5:30, casey wrote:
> On Mar 4, 1:41 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> > During evolution the brain formed first? and then consciousness?
>
>
>
> The analogy I like to use is that we need a brain for consciousness
>

Any reason why a brain would evolve for no reason?

[Sir Fred M. McNeill]

Good book on subject.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007V65UUG/ref=oh_d__o00_details_o00__i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
"How to Create a Mind: The Secret of Human Thought Revealed"
by Ray Kurzweil
-------------------------------------
Virtual realities can support all kinds of virtual magic
or "tricks". Brains are that way, very pragmatic.

[casey]

On Mar 4, 6:42 pm, Sir Fred M. McNeill <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 22:05:05 -0800 (PST), casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >On Mar 4, 3:30 pm, Sir Fred M. McNeill <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 18:41:51 -0800 (PST), "Ganesh J. Acharya"
>
> >> <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >During evolution the brain formed first? and then consciousness?
>
> >> Need a "brain" to practice such 'self' deceitful
> >> stories(representation) as "consciousness".
> >> How is your liver doing? So much for "consciousness".
> >> Deceit works, even 'self' deceit. Thus legacy representations
> >> became genetic, like "consciousness" or
> >> 'color'.
>
> >You imagine you have answered the question but I don't think you have.
>
> >Dennett says the mind is a trick, not real magic but stage magic,
> >and he may be right, but he hasn't explained how the trick is done.
>
> >Calling it self deceit is not an explanation without being able
> >to show how the self deceit works.
>
> Good book on subject.
>

> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007V65UUG/ref=oh_d__o00_details_o00...

> "How to Create a Mind: The Secret of Human Thought Revealed"
> by Ray Kurzweil

A view not shared by everyone when it comes to his views on the mind,

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/11/ray-kurzweils-dubious-new-theory-of-mind.html

[Arindam Banerjee]

It is lovely to talk about rainbows!
It is not just the sun and the rain, it is also the eye that makes the
rainbow for that eye. As many eyes are there, so many rainbows are
there. For the rainbow may look like a material cloud, but really it
is just the way the split-up light meets the eye. A bit more
technically, the contiguous locii of points providing secondary
refractions of light in tiny droplets in their respective solid angles
that are incident upon the eye of the observer is the rainbow; the
various colours or spectrum happening as rainwater bends some
frequencies more than others, and that is happening as the dielectric
constant of water depends upon the light's frequency, so some
frequencies have a higher velocity in water, some less...
Cheers, for my heart leaps when my eyes behold a rainbow in the sky,
Arindam Banerjee.

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Monday, March 4, 2013 11:31:01 AM UTC+5:30, casey wrote:

> On Mar 4, 1:41 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> > During evolution the brain formed first? and then consciousness?
>
>
>
> The analogy I like to use is that we need a brain for consciousness
>
> as we need a rain and the sun (or an equivalent set up) for a rainbow.
>
> The rainbow comes into existence as the rain begins to fall.
>
> Consciousness comes into existence as the brain evolves.
>

Nice try... but then it does not answer why would a "brain evolve" just like that ... ?

[Dare]

"Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:dde238b0-f8f8-437d...@googlegroups.com...

On Monday, March 4, 2013 11:31:01 AM UTC+5:30, casey wrote:
> On Mar 4, 1:41 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > During evolution the brain formed first? and then consciousness?
> >
> > The analogy I like to use is that we need a brain for consciousness
>
> Any reason why a brain would evolve for no reason?

Do all animals with brains experience consiousness...
Insects, worms, etc?

.

[Dare]

"Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:59554384-580e-47b2...@googlegroups.com...

>
> Nice try... but then it does not answer why would a "brain evolve" just like that ... ?

"Physiologically, the function of the brain is to exert centralized control over the other organs of the body."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain

[Sir Fred M. McNeill]

Different stories for different folk, including you.
At one time Earth flat or round stories did abound.
Brain and "consciousness" stories abound today.
At least Kurzweil has some interesting new stories.

I suspect his new role as head chief engineer at
Google will fund him well. Politicians cannot handle
the ideas of non-magic consciousness. It is not good
for hubris. Thus private funding is needed.

[Sir Fred M. McNeill]

Eyes do not make "colors". Brains make colors, as representations
of different neural distinctions from eye processes based on different
EM(ElectroMagnetic) wavelengths.

Only the 'top' primate brains affect "colors" as 'we' experience those
qualia. There is NO "color" 'out there' or in EM wavelength, even
in "rainbows" their is no "color".

Even some humans with different brains are 'color blind'. Don't ask
me what other animals experience. I can say many animals have eyes
and brains. They may also have subjective representational experiences.
Don't know.

[Jack McKinney]

It's like this: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them
drink; I guess some horses are doomed to die of thirst even while in the
presence of a lake of thirst quenching fresh water ...

SO SAD !

[Immortalist]

You know I think I agree with you as far as the framing of the subject
is concerned but I also tend to agree with Fred that we actually need
to deceive ourselves and we are deceived and this has kept us alive
and evolving. But this is not a bad thing. just listing all the self
deceptive cognitive biases in Social Psychology should be enough to
support Fred's framework.

You mention tricks and magic but I don't see how these are more
politically correct than deception. Take the perception of three
dimensions we have based on the the combination of two two dimensional
images combined in different parts of the brain. Our depth perception
is a trick. I don't mind it personally though since so far I have
enjoyed this trick much and the world seems to have things here,
there, near and far.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apbtGlg0Rck

[Immortalist]

Yaba Daba Doo

Since Darwin, we’ve basically taken a nineteenth-, twentieth-, and now
a twenty-first century view of contemporary society, and we've
projected them onto the past. We've imagined that the distant past to
be very much like the present, just with some modifications around the
edges. In the book we refer to it as "Flintstonization," because the
Flintstones are the so-called modern Stone Age family. It's a nuclear,
suburban existence, but in prehistory. And that doesn’t cut it in
terms of science. We need a bit more imagination and fealty to the
facts as we find them...

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/11_mar_apr/Seidman.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apbtGlg0Rck






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZw3lxyuhEU

You claim to "know" that the theory of rainbows is true. In science,
a theory is an explanation. Evolution is a theory, just like
gravitation. Gravity is not a law of nature but an explanation of
observations. If you drop something, it's going to fall. That's an
observation: unsupported things fall. But you explain that observation
with the theory of gravity, which is that the mass of what whatever it
is you dropped, a pencil or a pen or something, is attracted by the
mass...it's really a theory of gravity? But remember, a theory is an
explanation.

Next you will probably claim that rainbows are an "easy" problem but
consciousness is a "hard" problem; that the theory of rainbows is
based upon falsifiable empirical evidence. Then you'll try to show
that there is no falsifiable evidence that supports the theory of
consciousness.

Some guy shaking a stick at a giant pile of good falsifiable evidence?

But first you need to provide some example of "know" that neuroscience
cannot attain but other parts of science can.

[Immortalist]

Sorry about pasting the stuff from another post along with my
response, I am still trying to do this stuff on an eBook.

[instant shade]

On 3/3/2013 8:41 PM, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
> During evolution the brain formed first? and then consciousness?
>

Even if qualitative events were ubiquitous, or outran cognition, those
random occurrences would not be meaningful patterns about an
environment. They require a systemic production and organization into
sensory representations (which structures like brains provide), and
remedying their otherwise anoetic condition via application of
recognitions, meanings, conceptual models, and the rest of assorted
understandings maintained in a memory.

[Immortalist]

On Mar 3, 6:41 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> During evolution the brain formed first? and then consciousness?

Back in our watery days as fish, we lived in a medium that was
inherently unfriendly to seeing things very far away.

But then, about 350 million years ago in the Devonian Period, animals
like Tiktaalik started making their first tentative forays onto land.
From a perceptual point of view, it was a whole new world. You can see
things, roughly speaking, 10,000 times better.

Consciousness is the operation of the plan-executing mechanism,
enabling behavior to be driven by plans rather than immediate
environmental contingencies.

When the sensory and tactile potentials increased with the move out of
the water and onto the land, this might have been the first kind of
consciousness that selection pressures could have brought about.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2011/03/14/why-did-consciousness-evolve-and-how-can-we-modify-it/#.UTTXthi9Kf0

As for the question about which came first, it might be a false
dilemma since they both may have been incremental.

[casey]

On Mar 5, 3:00 am, Sir Fred M. McNeill <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
> [...]

> Don't ask me what other animals experience.

We may not know what other animals experience but we do
know what they can respond to.

There is experimental evidence as to what colors an animal
can discriminate. Insects for example can see ultraviolet.
Snakes have infrared detectors (body heat) like the cameras
we use to see hot objects in the night. Dogs I think can
discriminate red/green. We can also test cells in the retina
to see what they respond to.

[casey]

The question how is 3D done? Once we did not know how rain
and sun did the rainbow trick, now we do know how it is done.
We don't know how the brain does the mind trick, one day we
may know how it is done.


>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apbtGlg0Rck

[casey]

On Mar 4, 10:39 pm, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>
wrote:

But what human thinking process determined how the rainbow was
done by rain and sun (and other methods)?

Was it religion with its story of God and the flood or was it by the
methods used in science?

Which method has a track record in getting good explanations
as to how the physical world works?

If religion can't get anything more than child fairy stories to
explain the physical world what makes anyone think they
have any hope of getting it right about their imaginary
spiritual world?

[casey]

On Mar 5, 3:39 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yaba Daba Doo
>
> Since Darwin, we’ve basically taken a nineteenth-, twentieth-, and now
> a twenty-first century view of contemporary society, and we've
> projected them onto the past. We've imagined that the distant past to
> be very much like the present, just with some modifications around the
> edges. In the book we refer to it as "Flintstonization," because the
> Flintstones are the so-called modern Stone Age family. It's a nuclear,
> suburban existence, but in prehistory. And that doesn’t cut it in
> terms of science. We need a bit more imagination and fealty to the
> facts as we find them...
>

> http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/11_mar_apr/Seidman.htmlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apbtGlg0Rck

All the above is a big subject that comes under the philosophy of
natural science.

We have a description that relates what we know about rain as
drops of water and light passing through or being reflected from
them and other materials. We have no description to relate
qualia, how things feel to the brain, in terms of firing neurons.
We do have a model of how thoughts can be represented and
processed in the brain (computational theory of mind) and
thus have physical effects.

[casey]

On Mar 5, 4:38 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [...]

> Consciousness is the operation of the plan-executing mechanism,
> enabling behavior to be driven by plans rather than immediate
> environmental contingencies.

That is a functional description but it doesn't really satisfy the
need to know why it feels a certain way or feels like anything
at all.

Consciousness is involved in directed learning of new skills.
Once learnt those skills are acted out without us having to
be conscious of the details. This process was very well
explained for the layman in "Going Inside" - John McCrone.

[Sir Fred M. McNeill]

Those are all wavelength responses. Have nothing to do with
any 'mental' representation, such as the 'human' "colors".

How do insects, snakes and dogs represent EM wavelengths?
Maybe there is no "color" representation. Could be some other sort of
model representation, or simply 'reflex'.

The situation is stranger than 'we' can consider. 'Humans' are
so constrained. Looking forward to meeting the many putative ETs.
They are trapped in the same weird place.

[Sir Fred M. McNeill]

But 'our' brain needs stories, therefore, go to church, or whatever.
'Humans' are so constrained.

[casey]

On Mar 5, 8:16 am, Sir Fred M. McNeill <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 11:44:38 -0800 (PST), casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >On Mar 5, 3:00 am, Sir Fred M. McNeill <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>  Don't ask me what other animals experience.
>
> >We may not know what other animals experience but we do
> >know what they can respond to.
>
> >There is experimental evidence as to what colors an animal
> >can discriminate. Insects for example can see ultraviolet.
> >Snakes have infrared detectors (body heat) like the cameras
> >we use to see hot objects in the night. Dogs I think can
> >discriminate red/green. We can also test cells in the retina
> >to see what they respond to.
>
> Those are all wavelength responses. Have nothing to do with
> any 'mental' representation, such as the 'human' "colors".
>
> How do insects, snakes and dogs represent EM wavelengths?
> Maybe there is no "color" representation. Could be some other sort of
> model representation, or simply 'reflex'.

I would suggest the representation is for the higher planning
processes which in turn are controlled by the reward system.
A reflex process doesn't have to hold the plan (memory) or
direct the plan (under control of some goal state, again held
in memory) it only has to react to its inputs without memory.
For example with blind sight the subject can post a letter in
a slot which may be vertical or horizontal and yet claim that
they cannot see the slot. With continual feedback there is
no requirement for memory. Turn the light off and they will
fail at the task. A sighted person however can put the
orientation into memory to talk about it and post the letter
when the lights are turned off. We cannot talk about what
we are experiencing without it being in memory. It requires
a window of time. Like all science all this is based on
experiments and not on made up fairy tales.

We may need our stories but not all stories are equal
in their pragmatic value. The story of a flat earth wasn't
as good as the round earth story.

[Arindam Banerjee]

The former scientific thinking process that has it that the pencil
when dipped into a glass of water DOES NOT ACTUALLY BEND, and this
contradicts modern einsteinian physics, where appearance IS reality.
Appyling einsteinian thinking, the pencil actually bends when it is
dipped into water, for that is what it appears! Perception is
reality, appearance makes perception, media and cunning provide
appearance that is also sanctified by all the corrupted institutions.
While perception is reality a most sound principle in shady business
dealings (now universal) this does actually conflict both with the
principles of absolute truth and morality (now irrelevant, in our
einsteinian age).

I say former scientific thinking, for modern scientific thinking is
based upon special and general relativity, both masterpieces of con
trickery. SR is based upon an outright bungle that I pointed out in
2005 to the world, via usenet, and then explained myself over the
years in many postings. As for GR, the story is shameful indee. The
bending of light from the sun was observed in an eclipse of the sun -
the star positions were different and so it was thought that it was
the mass of the sun acting as a gravitational lens as per the
principles of GR. However, it was conveniently overlooked that the
Sun has an atmosphere like the earth; that light bends in denser
medium when it enters or leaves lighter medium, so the bending of
light was an optical event.

Thus, the bending of light when it enters denser medium from lighter
(and vice versa) is known as refraction, and this happens as light
moves more slowly in denser media. This happens as it has to maintain
the wavefront. If you send a column of soldiers to cross a river
where they gotta move more slowly, and remain abreast, you will also
find this phenomenon happening.

> Was it religion with its story of God and the flood or was it by the
> methods used in science?

Basically, honest and sincere effort over time, the results of which
were thought over carefully by honest people and not paid tricksters -
this leads to all worthy endeavour including scientific.

> Which method has a track record in getting good explanations
> as to how the physical world works?

All honest methods worked out by worthy people, in all disciplines.

> If religion can't get anything more than child fairy stories to
> explain the physical world what makes anyone think they
> have any hope of getting it right about their imaginary
> spiritual world?

Honest people cannot converse with the dishonest. The dishonest will
have their own mendacious explanations for everything, and evasive
actions such as petulant indifference, tangential diversions, etc.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Mar 5, 3:00 am, Sir Fred M. McNeill <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:

In which case a blind brainy person could know something about a
rainbow.

[casey]

On Mar 6, 10:22 am, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com>

Stimulating the visual system in the right place may well result
in them experiencing color. We can dream colors or imagine
colors in our mind's eye. I don't know if a person blind from
birth could see colors in their mind's eye.

A blind person could understand the math behind a rainbow.

[Immortalist]

I think your selling yourself short by categorizing a range of knowing
and discovery with a "black and white" or "all or nothing approach".
It's like how in Darwin's day there was no knowledge of genes and DNA
but instead theories of inheritance etc... But now we know about genes
and how they direct the assembly and control functions of bodily
tissues.

You make it sound as if we are in Darwin's day but we can now provide
some evidence that consciousness has everything to do with the
activities of nerve cells.

Besides science is mostly based upon inductive logic but your
framework is based on deductive logic. Science works only with
theories and hypothesis.

Two views of Deduction & Induction:

View 1: conclusion;
Deduction = infers particular from general truths
Induction = infers general from particular truths

View 2: conclusion;
Deduction = follows with absolute necessity
Induction = follows with some degree of probability

In reality all hard problems deal with the theory that deduction is
possible but deductive certainty is the unknown and we don't know of
we can know or not how it is done. That is what kind of evidence will
make any other possibility impossible except for what is inferred in
the premises with absolute certainty. Pity that is all your hard
problem really is. Also science don't do that jazz anyway so you'll
never be satisfied with it theories like the theory of gravity.

[Sheldon]

Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> The former scientific thinking process that has it that the pencil
> when dipped into a glass of water DOES NOT ACTUALLY BEND, and this
> contradicts modern einsteinian physics, where appearance IS reality.

The pencil is Virtually bent.

The path of light between the different media is Really bent;
so if your ruler were made of light, wouldn't it also be Really bent?...



"Learning to ride a bicycle is impossible."
-- Sheldon, The Kelvin-Helmholtz Instability

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Mar 6, 12:07 pm, Sheldon <shel...@sheldoncooper.gov> wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > The former scientific thinking process that has it that the pencil
> > when dipped into a glass of water DOES NOT ACTUALLY BEND, and this
> > contradicts modern einsteinian physics, where appearance IS reality.
>
> The pencil is Virtually bent.

The image of the pencil is virtually bent.

> The path of light between the different media is Really bent;

True.

> so if your ruler were made of light, wouldn't it also be Really bent?...

If there were unicorns, they would allow theemselves to be garlanded
by actual virgins.

The ruler is not made of light. It is made of material, which never
gets bent even though it appears to be bent.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[casey]

And if we came across a chess playing machine we could provide
some evidence that its "thinking" had everything to do with the
activity of the logic gates.

The question is: How does a machine do chess?
The question is: How does the brain do consciousness?

We have the answer to the first question because we invented
a way to get machines to play chess but we have yet to invent
a way to get a machine to do consciousness.

>
> Besides science is mostly based upon inductive logic but your
> framework is based on deductive logic. Science works only with
> theories and hypothesis.
>
> Two views of Deduction & Induction:
>
> View 1: conclusion;
> Deduction = infers particular from general truths
> Induction = infers general from particular truths
>
> View 2: conclusion;
> Deduction = follows with absolute necessity
> Induction = follows with some degree of probability
>
> In reality all hard problems deal with the theory that deduction is
> possible but deductive certainty is the unknown and we don't know of
> we can know or not how it is done. That is what kind of evidence will
> make any other possibility impossible except for what is inferred in
> the premises with absolute certainty. Pity that is all your hard
> problem really is. Also science don't do that jazz anyway so you'll

> never be satisfied with it theories like the theory of gravity.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Immortalist]

So for computers we have the history of making computers and
constructing that computer that played.

The explanation for how the brain does consciousness rests upon the
two pillars of evolution and anatomy.

Then you claim that a machine can do consciousness.

Are you claiming that all research in anatomy, physiology, evolution
and geology is not as much or as good as evidence as other areas of
life?

You also keep claiming that something is not determinable true or
false but then turn around and determine it false.

[Jack McKinney]

Group: alt.philosophy Date: Tue, Mar 5, 2013, 6:35pm (CST-2) From:
jgkj...@yahoo.com.au (casey)

On the one hand on Mar. 5, 2013 Casey wrote:

>> Brain formed first, the consciousness...

But on the other hand in
Luke 9:60 Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead..

Is Casey's brain dead ?

[Immortalist]

On Mar 6, 8:12 am, jak1...@webtv.net (Jack McKinney) wrote:
> Group: alt.philosophy Date: Tue, Mar 5, 2013, 6:35pm (CST-2) From:

> jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au (casey)

>
> On the one hand on Mar. 5, 2013 Casey wrote:
>
> >> Brain formed first, the consciousness...
>
> But on the other hand in
> Luke 9:60 Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead..
>
> Is Casey's brain dead ?

...2. There are ten commandments, not 12.
3. There are 12 disciples, not 10.
4. Jesus was consecrated, not constipated.
5. Jacob wagered his donkey, he did not bet his ass.
6. We do not refer to Jesus Christ as the late J.C.
7. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not refered to as Daddy,
Junior and Spook.
8. David slew Goliath, he did not kick the shit out of him.
9. When David was hit by a rock and was knocked off his donkey,
don't say he was stoned off his ass.
10. We do not refer to the cross as Big T
11. When Jesus broke the bread at the Last Supper he said, "Take
this and eat it, for it is my body," he did not say, "Eat
me!"
12. The Virgin Mary is not refered to as the "Mary with the
Cherry."
13. The reccommended grace before a meal is not, "Rub-A Dub-Dub,...

[casey]

On Mar 7, 2:26 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 5, 6:35 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > You make it sound as if we are in Darwin's day but we can now provide
> > > some evidence that consciousness has everything to do with the
> > > activities of nerve cells.
>
> > And if we came across a chess playing machine we could provide
> > some evidence that its "thinking" had everything to do with the
> > activity of the logic gates.
>
> > The question is: How does a machine do chess?
> > The question is: How does the brain do consciousness?
>
> > We have the answer to the first question because we invented
> > a way to get machines to play chess but we have yet to invent
> > a way to get a machine to do consciousness.
>
> So for computers we have the history of making computers and
> constructing that computer that played.
>
> The explanation for how the brain does consciousness rests upon the
> two pillars of evolution and anatomy.
>
> Then you claim that a machine can do consciousness.

Well I don't know if a machine can do consciousness for
we don't even know how the brain does consciousness.

The above was about firing neurons seeming to be required
for what we call consciousness in a human brain but that
we as yet do not know how that comes about. It is the
same kind of evidence someone might have that firing
logic gates seem to be required for machines to play
chess even if you didn't know exactly how that comes
about. For someone that doesn't know how a machine
plays chess it is a magic thinking machine.

There is no example of minds without brains, that is the
whole point when it comes to made up stuff about ghosts.
If a mind could exist without a brain why do brains exist?

> Are you claiming that all research in anatomy, physiology, evolution
> and geology is not as much or as good as evidence as other areas of
> life?

?

> You also keep claiming that something is not determinable true or
> false but then turn around and determine it false.

?

You have lost me with all these things you imagine I claim.

It interests me to get a handle on the neural basis of consciousness.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

precisely stated;
your rulers are bent-up lightwaves,
percieved via "ray-tracing" or geometrical optics; does that mean that
light is composed of rocks at the ends of arrows?

thus:
what is the "furthest-out-there" triangulation of the speed
of the lightwaves, not the God-am fake newtonian peice
o'light?... yeah, thanks,
Einstein Dingleberries on the beach -- hang five!... look,
Ommy -- I got a hoton!

thus:
general case is at least 4 atoms (whose
centers) are no all on a plane; perhaps
you can make a case for "five, not all 'in 1 space.

> n atoms, not all on one line (through say centroids);
> noone said taht "ray tracing" was a practicable method,
> even for lasers, iff a)
> they are tuned to the
> > > correct frequency, and b)
> > > their is at least one atom in the way.
> > Impossible- Hide quoted text -

thus:
piD equals circumference; curvature defined as "one over D diadians.
...Gaussian curvature is the product of two of these,
at right angles to each other, can be negative,
possibly imaginary.

> > You will notice the curvature as pi * r is the largest distance
> > and the triangle angle sum is greater than 180 degress.
> So, space may contain mass, but it is 'empty' that is "pure" space.

empty is "relative to the number of atoms
that you can & cannot see, viz uncertainty principal;
you cannot see them, except in terms of what it is that
they are transmitting EM, periodsville.

> one ice develops a fracture,
> it is very liable to "angular momentum," such as
> that imparted by gigantic ships, such as
> the 60s-era "750 kilohorsepower Soviet icebreakers;" at least,
> they're not leaving loaves of anti-albedo substance
> all over their trail.

> oh, the "stress;" why you didn't say, So?

> CO2 is merely an indicator of a massive influx
> of burning hydrocarbons, producing plenty water vapor,
> the *real* glass "house" gas of "global" warming.

> > >>>>>>>>> stress.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Mar 7, 6:35 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> precisely stated;
> your rulers are bent-up lightwaves,

No, they are made of wood or plastic or metal.

> percieved via "ray-tracing" or geometrical optics;

Or as a rap upon the knuckles, in a bygone era.

does that mean that
> light is composed of rocks at the ends of arrows?

No, light is about how much and how frequently the ether next to your
optic nerves gets vibrated, to excite filtered electric signals to
your brain.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

> > your rulers are bent-up lightwaves,

requiring at least one atom between the source
of the wave, such as a tank circuit, and your eye;
no requirement whatwoever for an aetheric "electromagnetism
of any substance other than elctrons jumping orbits."

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Mar 7, 1:23 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

No.

[Immortalist]

On Mar 4, 12:02 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Mar 5, 3:39 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Yaba Daba Doo
>
> > Since Darwin, we’ve basically taken a nineteenth-, twentieth-, and now
> > a twenty-first century view of contemporary society, and we've
> > projected them onto the past. We've imagined that the distant past to
> > be very much like the present, just with some modifications around the
> > edges. In the book we refer to it as "Flintstonization," because the
> > Flintstones are the so-called modern Stone Age family. It's a nuclear,
> > suburban existence, but in prehistory. And that doesn’t cut it in
> > terms of science. We need a bit more imagination and fealty to the
> > facts as we find them...
>

> >http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/11_mar_apr/Seidman.htmlhttp://www...

But researchers have been electrically stimulating neurons which alter
or are the units of subjective experience for decades. The researchers
have mapped out the entire cortex.

How the rain interacts with light to produce rainbows is better known
than certain aspects of Quantum Mechanics. That doesn't mean QM has no
evidence for it theories.

Your claiming it is impossible to discover how the activities of some
nerve cells is subjective experience.

There is at least some evidence for where and how the brain when
active is subjective experience. Here is some stuff they discovered
back in the 50s.

In the 1950s, Penfield was trying to treat patients with intractable
epilepsy. Before an epileptic seizure, he knew, patients experience an
"aura," a warning that the seizure is about to occur. Penfield thought
if he could provoke this aura with a mild electric current on the
brain, then he would have located the source of the seizure activity
and could remove or destroy that bit of tissue. While patients were
fully conscious, though anaesthetized, he opened their skulls and
tried to ((-pinpoint-)) with needle point electrodes, the source of
their epilepsy.

His technique was often successful, but his experimental surgery led
him to an even more dramatic discovery.

Stimulation_anywhere_on_the_cerebral_cortex)) could bring responses of
one kind or another, but he found that only by stimulating the
temporal lobes the lower parts of the brain on each side could he
elicit meaningful, integrated responses such as memory, including
sound, movement, and color.

These memories were much more distinct than usual memory, and were
often about things unremembered under ordinary circumstances. Yet if
Penfield stimulated the same area again, the exact same memory popped
up -- a certain song, the view from a childhood window -- each time.
It seemed he had found a physical basis for memory, an "engram."

He also developed a map of the brain, often portrayed as a cartoon
called the motor homunculus (miniature human being). This cartoon
character has features drawn according to how much brain space they
take up. Therefore, lips and fingers with their high number of nerve
endings are larger than arms and legs.

the juice-master
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/bhpenf.html
http://images.google.com/images?q=homunculus

Conversations with Neil's Brain
http://www.williamcalvin.com/bk7/bk7.htm

In conclusion your claim that there is no evidence in support of
theories about how the brain does consciousness is not justified.
Blind or dumb? Vague, you cannot produce a standard that will
determine how much evidence is needed to show what consciousness is.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

no, What?... did Pascal really discover an absolute vacuum?

he may have thought, so; at any rate,
he did discover the heighth of a single stage
for a suction pump for water, about 32 feet,
experimentally.

there is an extremely common confusion of lightwaves,
which spread at the speed of light, and Newton's ray-tracing,
which may be lamentable ... if anyone ever said, Boo,
Fignewton!

> > your rulers are bent-up lightwaves,
> > requiring at least one atom between the source
> > of the wave, such as a tank circuit, and your eye;

> > no requirement whathowever for an aetheric "electromagnetism

> > of any substance other than elctrons jumping orbits."
>
> No.

thus:
it is merely an indicator of human activity,
most of which is what constitutes the local warmings, although
there is no "global" warming in the glass "house" analogy,
by itself, utilizing Snell's law of refraction.

anway, CO2 is not usually the limiting factor;
it is more often one of the 92 elements ... although
commercial "NPK" actually containd gravelflour, so ...

> 800-1000 ppmv would be good for crops which put
> much water vapor in the air, staying cool!!

thus:
curvature per Gauss is simply the reciprocal of diameter, and
this is really all there is to it:
the curvature of space has local & global aspects to it,
related directly to the permitivity & pemeability of free space (or,
the index of refraction per Snell) ...
because of its atomic structure ... because of its atoms,
mostly some H+ and gobs of H2.

the old aetherists simply had an inadequate grok
of the atoms in space (and/or air).

thus:
"spacetime" is a sorry rattle-trap of a bad anaolgy,
taken to proverbial extremes of cartesianism;
use quaternions as the essentially "3-plus-a-totally-different-ONE-
so-called-dimensionality.

now, Fermat did not extend his method of coordination
to three dimensions, even; it was still better, though
he spent more time on creating the theory of numbers.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Mar 8, 11:38 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> no, What?...  did Pascal really discover an absolute vacuum?
>
> he may have thought, so; at any rate,
> he did discover the heighth of a single stage
> for a suction pump for water, about 32 feet,
> experimentally.

Torricelli found out that we are at the bottom of an ocean of air,
which presses up a column of water by 32 feet, and mercury by about a
meter. However this pressure only works as a lifting or pushing force
when there is nothing on the other side of the pushed matter, to stop
it. Thus, wisps of smoke do their wisping, for equal air pressure
works from all sides. When a forty foot pipe of water closed at one
end is placed upside down in a trough of water, about 8 feet of water
comes down as the air pressure can sustain only 32 feet. Within that
8 feet of piping, there is vacuum mixed with some litle water vapour
maybe. Since there is this vacuum at the other end of the 32 foot
column of air, instead of air, the column of water stands. When you
drill a hole in that pipe at the closed end, air will come in and that
air pressure will make the column of water drop into the trough.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai]

In article
<f3918ff1-70d4-4756...@pl9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
>
> On Mar 8, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > no, What?... =A0did Pascal really discover an absolute vacuum?

Arindam Banerjee is to be thanked for taking the tme to
teach elementary physics as a public service.

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.jai-maharaj

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Mar 8, 12:45 pm, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> In article
> <f3918ff1-70d4-4756-8cf1-5d0f2337d...@pl9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Thanks, Jai!

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

also, the dissolved gasses in the water;
there is no "absolute vacuum through which light
is unable to propogate, dood!"

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Monday, March 4, 2013 8:47:05 PM UTC+5:30, Dare wrote:
> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:dde238b0-f8f8-437d...@googlegroups.com...

>
> On Monday, March 4, 2013 11:31:01 AM UTC+5:30, casey wrote:
>
> > On Mar 4, 1:41 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > During evolution the brain formed first? and then consciousness?
>
> > >
>
> > > The analogy I like to use is that we need a brain for consciousness
>
> >
>

> > Any reason why a brain would evolve for no reason?
>
>
>
> Do all animals with brains experience consiousness...
>
> Insects, worms, etc?
>
>

That does not answer the question "why a brain would evolve for no reason?"

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Mar 8, 3:07 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> also, the dissolved gasses in the water;
> there is no "absolute vacuum through which light
> is unable to propogate, dood!"

Aether is the solid that fills the whole universe. It is the medium
through which all electromagnetic waves propagate. Just like water
waves use water as a medium, and the Mexican wave uses the stadium
audience as the medium. In vacuum, there are constant values for the
electric permittivity and the magnetic permeability. These two
physical constants are related to the speed of light, as was
demonstrated by Maxwell.
In brief, from Maxwell's laws,
the second order spatical derivative of the electric field
distribution equals the second order time derivative of the electric
field, mulitplied by the product of the electric permittivity and the
magnetic permeability. Now from physics we know that the square of
the velocity of any travelling wave (and light is a kind of just
that) is the second order time derivative of the wave function,
divided by the second order derivative of the spatial function.
Taking light as a travelling wave, then, we get the speed of
propagation of light as the inverse of the square root of the
constants, electric permittivity say ep, and magnetic permeabilty,
say, mu, thus the velocity of light as a travelling wave should be 1/
sqrt(e*p). Now the velocity of light was measured to be about that, so
this proves that the light is an electromagnetic wave motion. Since
light goes through vacuum, there has to be a medium out there for
carrying it, and this medium is aether. When there is material through
which light passes, the constants change according to the quality of
the material so the speed of light alters accordingly. So, light
moves slowly in water or glass, and because of this there is
refraction.

Hope this helps!
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Arindam Banerjee]

In other words, the quantum theory where light or any kind of
radiation is thought to travel in packets, or quanta, is at best
useless.

>
> Hope this helps!
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
>
>
>
>
>

> > > 8 feet of piping, there is vacuum mixed with some litle water vapour- Hide quoted text -

[Dare]

"Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:82a0899e-734a-474d...@googlegroups.com...

> On Monday, March 4, 2013 8:47:05 PM UTC+5:30, Dare wrote:
>> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:dde238b0-f8f8-437d...@googlegroups.com...
>>

>> > Any reason why a brain would evolve for no reason?
> >
>> Do all animals with brains experience consiousness...
>> Insects, worms, etc?
>
> That does not answer the question "why a brain would evolve for no reason?"

No...but it would indicate that brains did not originally
evolve specifically for consciousness?

[Dare]

On 3/8/2013 9:31 AM, Dare wrote:
>
> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:82a0899e-734a-474d...@googlegroups.com...
>> On Monday, March 4, 2013 8:47:05 PM UTC+5:30, Dare wrote:
>>> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:dde238b0-f8f8-437d...@googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> > Any reason why a brain would evolve for no reason?
>> >
>>> Do all animals with brains experience consiousness...
>>> Insects, worms, etc?
>>
>> That does not answer the question "why a brain would evolve for no
>> reason?"
>
> No...but it would indicate that brains did not originally evolve
> specifically for consciousness?

I mean that is, if some creatures have brains without consciousness.
But I guess we can't be sure whether or not they do.

[casey]

On Mar 9, 1:45 am, Dare <clydad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/8/2013 9:31 AM, Dare wrote:
>

> > "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> >news:82a0899e-734a-474d...@googlegroups.com...
> >> On Monday, March 4, 2013 8:47:05 PM UTC+5:30, Dare wrote:

> >>> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> >>>news:dde238b0-f8f8-437d...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> > Any reason why a brain would evolve for no reason?
>
> >>> Do all animals with brains experience consiousness...
> >>> Insects, worms, etc?
>
> >> That does not answer the question "why a brain would evolve for no
> >> reason?"
>
> > No...but it would indicate that brains did not originally evolve
> > specifically for consciousness?
>
> I mean that is, if some creatures have brains without consciousness.
> But I guess we can't be sure whether or not they do.

And until we know the requirements for consciousness we will
never know for sure.

Although there may be degrees of consciousness it may also
suddenly begin when the requirements are there. A crude
analogy might be the requirements for the ignition of the
nuclear fire in a cloud of hydrogen gas.

When certain neural events start taking place then perhaps
the brain starts doing consciousness. As more of the brain
is involved in that process we become more awake and
when less becomes involved in the process we fall asleep.
The process itself may be either on or off.

[Jack McKinney]

>> Brain formed first, then
>> consciousness?

Aha... maybe that's the problem with some of the scientific
materialists/ atheists... Their brains formed without the divine
guidance of a soul or spirit...

THAT WOULD EXPLAIN A LOT...
It makes me more sympathetic to their awful plight... A woe be-gone
existence in a soulless body...

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Mar 8, 11:31 pm, Rove...@webtv.net (Roverii Tom) wrote:
> Arindam B. wrote: "Dear Mr Roverii,
>
> What observation does the ether theory NOT explain? Cheers,
>
> Reaspnse: Magnetism!

magnetism exist from the electric current, which creates the magnetic
field. A changing magnetic field, caused by changing the current,
results in a changing electric field transverse to the magnetic
field. A electric field travels because of the medium, ether.
Magnetic waves also travel in ether. There are various modes of
propagation for magnetic waves in ether as a travelling wave, and in a
waveguide as a guided wave.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
>
> Roverii

[benj]

Banerjee electric and magnetic fields DO NOT "create each other".

Aether theory is the "theory of everything"! It not only explains
electromagnetic theory (magnetic fields are a flow of aether) but also
explains everything else like what is matter, all forces, alchemy and
every other observed phenomena. Just because the complete theory is not
know to humans at the present time, does not mean it doesn't or worse
cannot exist.

[casey]

If the soul exists without a functioning brain what
is the need for the brain? What does a soul add
to the functioning of a body? What does the soul
do that the brain can't do? What does the brain do
that the soul can't do.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Mar 9, 1:14 pm, benj <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 16:57:53 -0800, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Mar 8, 11:31 pm, Rove...@webtv.net (Roverii Tom) wrote:
> >> Arindam B. wrote: "Dear Mr Roverii,
>
> >> What observation does the ether theory NOT explain? Cheers,
>
> >> Reaspnse: Magnetism!
>
> > magnetism exist from the electric current, which creates the magnetic
> > field.  A changing magnetic field, caused by changing the current,
> > results in a changing electric field transverse to the magnetic field.
> > A electric field travels because of the medium, ether. Magnetic waves
> > also travel in ether.  There are various modes of propagation for
> > magnetic waves in ether as a travelling wave, and in a waveguide as a
> > guided wave.
> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee
>
> Banerjee electric and magnetic fields DO NOT "create each other".

Yes, they do. The presence of a current creates a magnetic field.
When the current changes, the magnetic field changes. This change
creates a changing electric field, manifested by a current in any loop
that cuts the magnetic flux (flux meaning the magnetic lines of
force). All elementary electrical engineering, given in any text
book. The electric field that is induced by the magnetic field, is
called the induced magnetic field and is the basis of operation for
all AC induction motors. Most certainly the induced electric field is
created by the existence of the changing magnetic field.

The fun happens when the electromagnetic fields start to radiate in
free space. Then the changing magnetic field creates a changing
electric field, which in turn creates a changing magnetic field, which
creates a changing electric field and so on and on, for every speck of
radiation, that is, for all transport of energy, with both the
transverse electric and magnetic fields propagating through the medium
of aether at the speed of light. When they find a denser medium, such
as air, or water, they travel slower, hence the refraction or bending.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Jack McKinney]

On Fri, Mar 8, 2013, 6:50pm (CST-2) From: jgkj...@yahoo.com.au (casey)
wrote:

> If the soul exists without a functioning
> brain what is the need for the brain?
> What does a soul add to the functioning
> of a body? What does the soul do that
> the brain can't do? What does the brain
> do that the soul can't do.

Hey good buddy, I'm not arguing with you, I'm agreeing with you; based
on your learned experience, your brain formed without the benefit of any
guidance... Your brain is just the meaningless result of stars that
exploded billions of years ago, and your behavior is totally governed by
the random firing of neuron within your brain.... and because of that,
you really have no earthly idea about what you might say next...

Again, I say, that explains a lot... I am beginning to understand why
you utter the things that you utter...

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

Why did a human need a computer when human had a brain?

[casey]

On Mar 9, 10:45 pm, jak1...@webtv.net (Jack McKinney) wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013, 6:50pm (CST-2) From: jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au (casey)

> wrote:
>
> > If the soul exists without a functioning
> > brain what is the need for the brain?
> > What does a soul add to the functioning
> > of a body? What does the soul do that
> > the brain can't do? What does the brain
> > do that the soul can't do.
>
> Hey good buddy, I'm not arguing with you, I'm agreeing with you; based
> on your learned experience, your brain formed without the benefit of any
> guidance... Your brain is just the meaningless result of stars that
> exploded billions of years ago, and your behavior is totally governed by
> the random firing of neuron within your brain....

They are not random firing.

> and because of that,
> you really have no earthly idea about what you might say next...

Rubbish. People are very predictable in general if not in detail.

[casey]

On Mar 9, 11:22 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Why did a human need a computer when human had a brain?

Is that a serious question? You really don't know why we use
computers?

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

There was a question asked above

"> If the soul exists without a functioning brain what is the need for
the brain?"

For which I asked "Why did a human need a computer when human had a
brain?" for the same reason?

[Immortalist]

On Mar 4, 12:16 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Mar 5, 4:38 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Consciousness is the operation of the plan-executing mechanism,
> > enabling behavior to be driven by plans rather than immediate
> > environmental contingencies.
>
> That is a functional description but it doesn't really satisfy the
> need to know why it feels a certain way or feels like anything
> at all.
>

The query was made as to which came first and I answered probably
neither since they both evolved mutually to some extent.

Here is the problem and then your answer.

1. The brain evolved first and then consciousness cam later.

2. Consciousness was first and the brain evolved later.

3. The brain and the ability for consciousness came about together and
incrementally.

> Consciousness is involved in directed learning of new skills.
> Once learnt those skills are acted out without us having to
> be conscious of the details. This process was very well
> explained for the layman in "Going Inside" - John McCrone.

I just created the eBook from old scans of that book. I have the only
perfect ebook version but I ain't special because I know how to create
perfect ebooks. I am that dam good at this. Anyway that book is one of
the best histories of neurophysiology that I have read still. But your
answer seems irrelevant. Not either or but some mixture.

How to Make an Ebook....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arCchROOEP0

[casey]

On Mar 10, 1:35 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> On Mar 9, 5:37 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 9, 11:22 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Why did a human need a computer when human had a brain?
>
> > Is that a serious question? You really don't know why we use
> > computers?
>
> There was a question asked above
>
> "> If the soul exists without a functioning brain what is the need for
> the brain?"
>
> For which I asked "Why did a human need a computer when human had a
> brain?" for the same reason?

The analogy doesn't hold. If you can't work it out yourself
then I doubt anything I write will make any difference.

You have assumed the soul and are now looking for
an explanation for the brain. We don't need a soul
to explain the mind. The mind is something the brain
can do all by itself. We don't need magic to explain
the rainbow, it can be explained as the working of
the rain and sun. We don't need magic to explain
the mind, we now have reason to believe it can all
be explained as the working of firing neurons and
their connections.

If a rainbow can exist without the rain and sun then
what is the need for the rain and sun for a rainbow?
I suspect the reason the rain and sun is there when
we see a rainbow is because a rainbow cannot
exist without the rain and sun. I suspect the reason
the brain is there when we experience being a mind
is because the mind cannot exist without the brain.

[benj]

On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 20:37:02 -0800, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

>> Banerjee electric and magnetic fields DO NOT "create each other".
>
> Yes, they do. The presence of a current creates a magnetic field. When
> the current changes, the magnetic field changes. This change creates a
> changing electric field, manifested by a current in any loop that cuts
> the magnetic flux (flux meaning the magnetic lines of force). All
> elementary electrical engineering, given in any text book. The electric
> field that is induced by the magnetic field, is called the induced
> magnetic field and is the basis of operation for all AC induction
> motors. Most certainly the induced electric field is created by the
> existence of the changing magnetic field.

No, they don't. If you write Maxwell;s equations in causal form you find
that the usual "textbook" equation is NOT causal. H cannot cause E
because they occur at the same time. It is CURRENT that creates BOTH an E
and H field. Not each other. This has all been shown by others.

> The fun happens when the electromagnetic fields start to radiate in free
> space. Then the changing magnetic field creates a changing electric
> field, which in turn creates a changing magnetic field, which creates a
> changing electric field and so on and on, for every speck of radiation,
> that is, for all transport of energy, with both the transverse electric
> and magnetic fields propagating through the medium of aether at the
> speed of light. When they find a denser medium, such as air, or water,
> they travel slower, hence the refraction or bending.

Isn't it "fun" when someone invents a theory that really "works" and
"explains" everything in simple terms? Allow me to quote H. L. Mencken"

"There is always a well-known solution to every human problem...neat,
plausible, and wrong."

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Mar 10, 5:16 am, benj <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 20:37:02 -0800, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >> Banerjee electric and magnetic fields DO NOT "create each other".
>
> > Yes, they do.  The presence of a current creates a magnetic field. When
> > the current changes, the magnetic field changes.  This change creates a
> > changing electric field, manifested by a current in any loop that cuts
> > the magnetic flux (flux meaning the magnetic lines of force).  All
> > elementary electrical engineering, given in any text book. The electric
> > field that is induced by the magnetic field, is called the induced
> > magnetic field and is the basis of operation for all AC induction
> > motors.  Most certainly the induced electric field is created by the
> > existence of the changing magnetic field.
>
> No, they don't. If you write Maxwell;s equations in causal form you find
> that the usual "textbook" equation is NOT causal. H cannot cause E
> because they occur at the same time. It is CURRENT that creates BOTH an E

> and H field.\

Nonsense. It is current that creates H, the magnetic field. With a
static current, there is a static magnetic field. Which does not
create any electric field. The electric field, and that too, one
that MUST vary, happens only when there is a change in the magnetic
field. So it is the changing magnetic field which causes the changing
electric field, by induction, and that is the principle behind all AC
induction motors. Yes, it all happens very fast, because the
distances involved are very small. When we talk of travelling waves,
the field must travel at the speed of light. I have summarised the
way travelling waves work, as simply as possible, in earlier posts.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Mar 10, 5:16 am, benj <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

Smart alecks were born to demean those of genius. Genius makes
complex things simple, and thus, upset the machinations of scoundrels
out to gain from fooling fools.
Cheers,
Arindam (greatest genius of all time, sole god among lotsa devils)
Banerjee
e=0.5mVVN(N-k)
c(v=V)=c+V

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Saturday, March 9, 2013 11:41:44 PM UTC+5:30, casey wrote:
> On Mar 10, 1:35 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 9, 5:37 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Mar 9, 11:22 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>
> > > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > Why did a human need a computer when human had a brain?
>
> >
>
> > > Is that a serious question? You really don't know why we use
>
> > > computers?
>
> >
>
> > There was a question asked above
>
> >
>
> > "> If the soul exists without a functioning brain what is the need for
>
> > the brain?"
>
> >
>
> > For which I asked "Why did a human need a computer when human had a
>
> > brain?" for the same reason?
>
>
>
> The analogy doesn't hold. If you can't work it out yourself
>
> then I doubt anything I write will make any difference.
>
>
>
> You have assumed the soul

Obviously, why would a brain form just like that?

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

"What is this entity ‘I’ ? Is it the body? When we point to our shirt and say ‘this is my shirt’, we automatically admit that the shirt is different from us. Likewise when we say "this is my hand" the automatic inference is that 'I' is not the hand. So what is this ‘I’? It is something beyond the body or the mind. It is the soul or the ‘Atman’. That is our natural Self. "

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sadgoshthi/fXAD06knXk0/BUaFORFcAtsJ

[casey]

On Mar 20, 4:50 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> [...]

> "What is this entity ‘I’ ? Is it the body? When we point to our shirt
> and say ‘this is my shirt’, we automatically admit that the shirt is
> different from us. Likewise when we say "this is my hand" the
> automatic inference is that 'I' is not the hand. So what is this ‘I’?
> It is something beyond the body or the mind. It is the soul or the
> ‘Atman’. That is our natural Self. "

Or is the Self something created by the brain. What is the evidence?

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

But why will a brain get created on its own? Saying so seems illogical? So why does one want to continue with something illogical?

A Soul can create a brain (a machine) to help itself ... sounds logical?

So, why does one want to stand upside down and quote something else?

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

Again, apology.
One does not need to stand upside down to quote something illogical.

Don't see a reason to believe in "A brain formed on its own".

[casey]

On Mar 20, 3:03 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> [...]

> A Soul can create a brain (a machine) to help itself
> ... sounds logical?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_reasoning

Ganesh the soul is made up, it doesn't actually exist
to create anything. Open your eyes what do you see
associated with minds? BRAINS!! That is all there is.
Just because you can imagine things doesn't mean that
they actually exist.

> Don't see a reason to believe in "A brain formed
> on its own".

Open your eyes again. We start as a single cell that
multiplies and specializes all by itself. It is not
a matter of belief, it is a matter of observation.

We can see that brains form out of a single cell
along with all our other organs to make a community
of cells we call a multicellular organism.

[Flasherly]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 22:10:20 -0700 (PDT), casey
<jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>On Mar 20, 3:03�pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> [...]
>
>
>> A Soul can create a brain (a machine) to help itself
>> ... sounds logical?
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_reasoning
>
>Ganesh the soul is made up, it doesn't actually exist
>to create anything. Open your eyes what do you see
>associated with minds? BRAINS!! That is all there is.
>Just because you can imagine things doesn't mean that
>they actually exist.

It, if then the mind should determine, in fact, it is less than a
perfectly sustainable actuality of substances it lacks to imagine --
which, by dint of associative properties, it only at best may vaguely
sense good, in some inconclusive manner as perhaps inspirational --
among the myriad presentment of concepts of culture, say, what is that
sense, in essence lacking within, how is to be baptized, as it were,
if not then unique to a soul beside a mind in all other
characteristics for the mind effectually to say: Yes, indeed, for I am
a part satisfied by what I can and do will actively to engage among
unique entities, of my kind, likewise?

[Dare]

On 3/19/2013 11:54 PM, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 1:57:17 AM UTC+5:30, casey wrote:
>> On Mar 20, 4:50 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>

>>> "What is this entity �I� ? Is it the body? When we point to our shirt
>>
>>> and say �this is my shirt�, we automatically admit that the shirt is

>>
>>> different from us. Likewise when we say "this is my hand" the
>>

>>> automatic inference is that 'I' is not the hand. So what is this �I�?

>>
>>> It is something beyond the body or the mind. It is the soul or the
>>

>>> �Atman�. That is our natural Self. "

>>
>>
>>
>> Or is the Self something created by the brain. What is the evidence?
>

> But why will a brain get created on its own? Saying otherwise seem illogical? So why does one want to continue with something illogical?

>
> A Soul can create a brain (a machine) to help itself ... sounds logical?
>

> So, why does one want to stand upside down and quote something else?

As casey pointed out in a similar thread....
Why does this Soul need a brain or a body to help it?
If it is the natural self can do and experience everything,
why does it need more that may distort this natural self?