Leaderboard

All generalizations are wrong all the time, so I really should be cautious here, but the concepts coming from the literature I engage most with focus on activity in certain regions, saturation of various chemicals, spikes in oxygen uptake, neural conductance and the like. I suspect the term unconscious is still used as a shorthand for laypeople even in clinical settings like therapy sessions and Vogue articles, but it’s not very useful because it’s not very descriptive and you likely wouldn’t see those same clinicians using it at conference talks or in brief hallway watercooler problem solving sessions. When you’re sitting at a table that wobbles, me telling you that it’s wobbling because “there’s a gap between the floor and the table leg” isn’t exactly useful information. My stance is that calling parts of the mind “unconscious” is similarly lacking in value. However, saying the length of Leg3 is 1/8” longer than the length of Legs 1,2,&4… all of which are equally long… IS useful. It’s more precise and specific like when we speak of oxygen uptake spikes in the parietal lobe or nerve conductance rates up the spine and feedback signals from the gut. IMO, ”unconscious” is a remnant of times past when our understanding was more tightly constrained. It’s a dying term used more for poetry than precision.

How do you suppose slime molds came up with an "end goal". And what is its end goal? Does evolution simply stop once the end goal is met? What evidence do you have? Well, based on your first two lines, there is no "parent" of intelligence. There is a parent of an offspring who inherited the intelligence.

Anything like this ? can you catch a screenshot of your own ?

What is the difference? If an organism manages to propagate, I would say whatever new features are propagated (regardless of how they became a part of it to begin with) have become part of the organisms evolution.

As a note for anyone who may stumble upon this post in the future: This is something I wrote when I really didn't understand much about science and I was also ignorant about a lot of other things. Unfortunately its one of the things that first pops up when I search my name, and its honestly really embarrassing that this exists out there, but unfortunately this forum doesn't delete posts, so all I can do is attach a comment to express my discontent with my silly past self.

By “geometry” I mean how exactly the region of spacetime in question is curved. There’s mainly two considerations that are of relevance in this context here - does spacetime become approximately flat if we go far enough away (asymptotic flatness), or are there distant sources of gravity that need to be accounted for? And secondly - what symmetries does this spacetime have? Can we translate each point within this region a short distance along space and/or time, without affecting any of the physics? For example, each point in ordinary Schwarzschild spacetime can be shifted along a vector pointing - say - 1 second into the future, without changing anything about the physics of the system - it thus is said to admit a time-like Killing field, which is to say it is a stationary spacetime. Killing fields are one way to speak about symmetries in spacetime. And since continuous symmetries are by Noether’s theorem associated with conserved quantities, this will have an impact on how we define concepts such as energy-momentum across an extended region. Different definitions are available for different types of spacetime exhibiting different symmetries; and if you’re in a spacetime that’s complicated enough so that it has very few or no symmetries, then it may not even be possible to define its global mass in a meaningful way at all. Does this make more sense?

Here is a very simple logical proof that I have just come up with that proves conclusively Relativity is just an optical illusion. It shows that Relativity has a built in logical fallacy, and no theory based on a logical falicy can be correct no matter how many experiments claim to prove it. According to Relativity, two inertial moving observers will see each others space contract and time dilate. This is a complete contradiction and a physical impossibility if the effects are real. Objects and the passage of time can not be both small and large at the ""SAME"" time for the ""SAME"" observer. The only possible explanation is that the observed effects are an optical illusion. Any theory based on Special Relativity, such as General Relativity, must also have the same problem. Consequently all of modern physics, which is based on Relativity, needs to be rethought. Again the argument is very simple and it is the argument Einstein used to derive Relativity, and no acceleration is used in the argument. A Train with length (L) traveling at constant velocity (v) relative a stationary observer on a station platform. According to Relativity, the stationary observer will see the Train contracted (L/r, where r is the Relativistic gamma), whereas an observer on the Train will see it not contracted (L). So the Train is both contracted (L/r) and not contracted (L) depending on the observer. This is a complete contradiction (L not equal L/r) and can not be true if length is real. The same argument applies to time (T not equal rT). Both observers will disagree on the passage of time. If time is real, it can not be both dilated and not dilated. If space and time are observed to be both large and small simultaneously for one inertial reference frame, such as the Train, then it must be an optical illusion. The Wang and Sten papers support my theoretical calculations. The Shantz paper supports my experimental results of the antenna experiment. Please read the following argument: Here is a very simple logical proof that I have just come up with that proves conclusively Relativity is just an optical illusion. It shows that Relativity has a built in logical fallacy, and no theory based on a logical falicy can be correct no matter how many experiments claim to prove it. According to Relativity, two inertial moving observers will see each others space contract and time dilate. This is a complete contradiction and a physical impossibility if the effects are real. Objects and the passage of time can not be both small and large at the ""SAME"" time for the ""SAME"" observer. The only possible explanation is that the observed effects are an optical illusion. Any theory based on Special Relativity, such as General Relativity, must also have the same problem. Consequently all of modern physics, which is based on Relativity, needs to be rethought. Again the argument is very simple and it is the argument Einstein used to derive Relativity, and no acceleration is used in the argument. A Train with length (L) traveling at constant velocity (v) relative a stationary observer on a station platform. According to Relativity, the stationary observer will see the Train contracted (L/r, where r is the Relativistic gamma), whereas an observer on the Train will see it not contracted (L). So the Train is both contracted (L/r) and not contracted (L) depending on the observer. This is a complete contradiction (L not equal L/r) and can not be true if length is real. The same argument applies to time (T not equal rT). Both observers will disagree on the passage of time. If time is real, it can not be both dilated and not dilated. If space and time are observed to be both large and small simultaneously for one inertial reference frame, such as the Train, then it must be an optical illusion. For more information see: YouTube presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sePdJ7vSQvQ&t=0sPaper Paper it is based on: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: http://vixra.org/abs/2309.0145