Luc Turpin

Yes it does........not so simple Apparently, all cells including neurons use multiple signals at the same time to communicate: · Secreted chemicals - action potential when occurring at the synapse · Launched sacs filled with genetic instructions - don't think its' action potential · Electric currents - electrical current not action potential (wiring), but neuron firing is action potential · Electromagnetic waves - field generation not action potential, but firing is · Physical contact by cells - guess not action potential · Biological nanotubes between cells - not sure; could not get the info There is also talk of overall brain electromagnetic waves being used for communication, which should not be action potential. The debate as I see it is whether or not neurons solely communicate by synaptic potential or are there other means. Recent evidence tends to favour the latter. And if all modes of communication use the action potential function. For a general outline of vescicle complexity here is a link https://jonlieffmd.com/blog/extra-cellular-vesicles-brain

It does not only fire or not, but apparently does much more; like share chemical information vesicles with other cells or use electromagnetism to communicate. Neurons, wiring, the whole brain and how it works is much more complicated than we thought. I believe that they are conscious only because they appear to dream and this consciousness is lower but similar to us as they are using basically the same hardware to do so. You are correct on this statement; we can’t possibly know for sure what it will grow up to be and we might be all surprised when we find out. That is why I said "at the moment".

We are still discovering how neurons work and it appears to be more complex then anticipated. For example, neurons found to use many types of vesicles to communicate with other cells, not at the synapse. As for neurons being transistors, they appear to be much more than this. And as for your copyable contention, you know more than me, However, as the empty brain articles indicates, we are not quite sure where or if the information is stored in the brain, so how or could we copy it, remains unanswered. Also, I am unconvinced at this moment that AI or robots will one day be conscious. If it was the case, would we, like in lower life-forms that preceded us, have already begun to see inklings of consciousness in our machines? There may be a fine line separating non-living matter and living matter.The film is superb.

Thanks for responding, and more so for reading beyond the first few lines of a post, and, for not downright discarding me. Yep, really, the transducer model of the brain is one of many out there trying to replace the brain as a processor model, which is definitely not making grounds anymore. And, what about this one by Robert Epstein and the Empty Brain model, which is much more-timid than the transducer model in its' contention, but still steering away from the processor model. Taken from a thread in Science Forums. Having to take the environment (life history, social context) into the mind context; again, shy in its' contention, but getting there. https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer Quoting Deepak does not make everything else irrelevant; I do not especially care about Deepak. Susan Blackmore is a relevant source of information for NDE's; so is Bruce Greyson - After I reiterate, my line of inquiry is not whether NDE's are real or not, but how mind still operates in a very broken brain; even if phantasmagoric stories are being reported by near death experiencers, they still include thoughts like memory, recognition, emotions and so on. There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination. Daniel Dennet, Darwin's dangerous idea - like that 👍

Are we entering a new phase of climate change with significant consequences for humanity? https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-february-2024-was-globally-warmest-record-global-sea-surface-temperatures-record-high

I do not want to overturn anything, but science may or may not do so at a point in time. Ag I do not want to overturn anything, but science may or may not do so at a point in time. Not one out of body expience, but many thousands of NDE's (out of body experience (OBE's) is a singular part of NDE's); 5-10% of the population have or will experience it. Many cases of NDE"s during anaesthesia; almost sure, but not certain about induced comas. I reiterate, type NDERF in your search engine for Alice in Wonderland summaries of hundreds-thousands of such cases

Additional details - the patient remembered events that occurred during the flatline state, not during general anesthesia. Critics said she pieced together a “story” of flatlined events based on prior knowledge of the operation and mixed it in with memories she made during general anesthesia. Also to note is that the patient’s recollection of flatlined events concurred pretty much with what had actually happened during that time. To me, the critics story is as incredulous as the story being told by the patient. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Because of limitations, Newtonian physics was replaced by General Relativity; so too may our current understanding of the mind-brain connection be in need of a revision to take into account extreme situations such as near-death experiences. The brain is not a processor, but maybe a bi-directional transducer – see below. Ironically, there is more interest in artificial intelligence-consciousness than in human intelligence-consciousness. Pun aside, mind is all that matters. Both science and mathematics are mental constructs. Discussions on this forum are brought to you by mind. One’s reputation takes a “hit” by bringing up controversial topics, but someone has to do it. Ignoring it will not make it go away. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The brain is not a processor, but maybe a transducer. Transducer – a device that converts a signal in one form of energy to a signal in another. “Transduction is all around us, even in organic processes. Our bodies are completely encased by transducers. Our sense organs — eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and skin —transduce distinctive properties of electromagnetic radiation, air pressure waves, airborne chemicals, liquid-borne chemicals, textures, pressure, and temperature into distinctive patterns of electrical and chemical activity in the brain. Organic compounds can even be used these days to create new kinds of transducers, such as OECTs: organic electrochemical transistors.” A must-read article if you want to know where all of this is coming from: https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/your-brain-is-not-a-computer-it-is-a-transducer This also relates to the "Empty Brain" thread on one of the forums

To remove a large aneurysm close to the brain stem that was about to burst. Surgery was not an option due to the position of the aneurysm. A standstill operation (medically induced hypothermic cardiac arrest) was performed. Before the operation, the patient was in a medically-induced near-death state with heart and brain not functioning; body temperature reduced to about 50 degrees, breathing and heartbeat stopped, blood drained from her head, and eyes closed with tape and small ear plugs with speakers placed in her ears to monitor the brain stem and thus ensure that the patient had flatlined. Patient "reported that during the operation, she heard a sound like a natural 'D' that seemed to pull her out of her body and allowed her to "float" above the operating room and watch doctors perform the operation". Critics say that the patient had anesthesia awareness, because part of the operation was under anesthesia alone. Normaly, you don't "float away" during anesthesia awareness, but remain aware in your body. I am not claiming anything, but if this is true then there is a problem with our understanding of the mind-brain connection. Again, many more "stories' of mind functioning under major-major brain duress.

Dr. Sabom did the operation on Pam Reynolds, but it is not the only case. Because these are related to near death experiences, nobody even bothers to consider them. Eben Alexander also had memory, recognition and emotions on a heavily traumatized brain. Countless "stories" like those. Venture on the "wild' side and visit NDERF; warning - you will be entering Alice in Wonderland. To me, it is not about whether NDE's are real or not, but how mind can still express itself within a severely incapacitated or, possibly, absent brain.

Then how do you explain terminal lucidity in advanced Alzheimer patients with very severely damaged brains or patients with hearts stopped and brains drained of blood, both having complex thoughts that include memory, recognition, emotions and so on. In the former, one could expect some form of delusional, but not coherent thoughts, and in the latter, well, nothing at all or maybe synaptic miss-firing with nothing resembling thought processes. These are traumatic injuries to the brain without apparent consequences on mind.

Where is mind in the brain? unanswered How does the mind work through the brain? unanswered As long as these two questions remain undetermined, we cannot be absolutely certain that mind is brain based. A minority of neuroscientists are starting to have a look at panpsychism, because the data does not always seem to fit with a brain-based model Terminal lucidity and near-death experiences may be manifestations of mind outside brains, but the jury is still very much out on these two! Collective consciousness - Carl Jung Mind – another dimension or dimensionless (without time nor space) I do not think that you can query the subjective in the same manner as the objective. Also, if it exists, then you cannot discard it just because it cannot be measured. You find other ways. I remain sceptical that mind is outside of brain.

You are right! not my call! Will stand down!

Here is fine!

I was asking because of this: "After jumping into a black hole and passing the horizon, time and space change roles as now the singularity is not longer a point in space, but a moment in time."

Ok! let's have the conversation here!

But, its not the only one; see listing. And the listing is incomplete Also, this tread has moved to physics, astronomy and cosmology. Maybe we should continue the conversation there. I posted one that asks help understanding light-year. Under Determining Distance - split from consmic megastructure

Understood!

Not sure that I understand your statement; can you substantiate?

So primed c cannot been seen as he has passed EH and faded away, while unprimed c has not passed EH and then can still be seen! correct? Or is this a too simplistic explanation? Got that

Much better visual comprehension now than before. It was generally what I thought. So unprimed c cannot been seen as he has passed EH and faded away, while unprimed c has not passed EH and then can still be seen! correct? Or is this a too simplistic explanation?

I was visually seeing it on the diagram, but cannot grasp the concept conceptually! Am-I asking a silly question if I ask if there is a difference in seing at EH as opposed to inside the BH?

Based on the diagram and reading, unprimed c will see primed c fade away and disappear as he gets closer and closer to EH. This is because light will emit ever more slowly, get dimmer until completely fading away as one reaches EH. Nothing comes out of a black hole, not even light. Correct? As for primed c seeing unprimed c falling through the horizon, I can only speculate that primed c will see the incoming light without impediment, but I am not so sure. Common logic tells me that if light fades away on one side, it should not be present on the other side. But this is of course a black hole, which abides by its own internal laws. So, space-time is inverted? space (down) becomes time (future)?

Will do!

The unprimed observer would also see the primed observer, but motionless as he has already fallen through the horizon! Correct? The opposite, I should have said, its the primed observer that sees the unprimed observer motionless as he has fallen through the horizon! correct? And the unprimed observer would also see the primed observer, but moving as he has not fallen through the horizon! Correct? Disregard the second post, I had it correct the first time.

Very good overall explanation I am still having difficulty with how so much complexity is able to be mostly driven by mechanistic processes. It seems as if machines would break down even before being able to play the survival of fittest game. In French, we would say, "le retour du balancier". (the return of the pendulum if this exists in English). I have questions to ask on this, but they might not belong in this thread, so I will let it go.