SamBridge

At least now we're getting somewhere. The cause of the perception seems to be stimulated connections between neurons in a certain "perception" part of the brain. This does not seem too complicated me and you didn't have to be a brat about it at all, you could have started with that in the first place. Now that we have that down, we can ask "how is it that a chemical sends a signal to the brain to cause connections when it is in the bloodstream?". We have an event that takes place, someone perceives that event via connections between neurons in the perception part of the brain after the signal has traveled from the eyes to the back of the brain and the neurons connected to those neurons that respond to the ones for that particular event connect to the hypothalamus and through some kind of stimuli that triggers a chemical reaction carried by the connections tells the hypothalamus to release a chemical into the blood, then by some mechanism the chemical in the blood somehow causes that processes (which is what I'm inquiring about) that sends a signals to the brain which connects between neurons that carry the information of the chemical to the perception part of the brain. As you said before it depends on how the neurons are connected, they may be connected in such a way that a certain a event does not cause the release of a certain chemical (which can obviously) easily be the case), but let's assume it was the chemical that caused anger that was released into the blood stream after said event. It almost seems like a feedback loop which would seem to explain why emotions seem to take more time to set in than reflexes. You have a chemical in the blood, but what is it actually doing to send a signal to the brain to cause that process Does it chemically bond to a nerve cell and then in some reversible reaction return to it's normal state after the signal in some chemical process releases enough energy for the nerve cell to be stimulated and send a signal? Or perhaps get's "used up", but then that would maybe destroy nerve cells which means that hypothesis can't be correct?". Then after that signal travels, what specific property about that signal that was caused by a chemical reaction from an emotional hormone causes it to connect to neurons in the specific manner that they do, or is there not a specific way neurons connect? What is different in the signal of something like pain versus anger? Or perhaps there is not a difference of the signal, but what mechanism it travels from? Remember this isn't being answered just for me, but for the future reference of anyone else with questions related to this, after these "complicated" questions are answered, they can be referenced if they are in fact accurate answers. I said that I didn't have a background in neuroscience, now it's up to the poster not to debate what the question is I'm asking, because I will ask for myself the question I want to ask, but rather to try and answer the question which I assume this site was made for doing.

At the atomic level, it's chosen randomly, there is no "cause", and scientists looked very hard for this and Einstein until his last day on his bed before he died looked for these "hidden variables" that may cause all measurements, and nothing, and it seems as though that with our current understanding of physics, there cannot be any specific cause because there cannot be an infintessimally small amount of matter causing events on the next higher level due to the quantinization of matter and energy resultant from the fundamental properties of matter and energy that are similar to a standing wave.

Well "wrong" is such an arbitrary term. I'm not saying opinions are wrong, I don't think they even can be right or wrong by definition.

That just seems like it's restating the experiment, it doesn't actually explain what is going on if it's not virtual particles. You don't think scientists would have already considered every possible attempt at using gravity and electro-magnetism before being forced to consider the existence of such non-existent objects?

Well some stories you can say pertain to common experience more than others or are more clever in their attempt to show a point or a view without morals.

Space is not nothingness and if it was we would not be here because space contains all the dimensions.

What you're saying does not make sense and contradicts itself.

I didn't say "tell me how neuroscience works", I don't know how I can possibly more specific about the answer I want. It's start with a more basic question then. How is it that you perceive anything in the first place after the electrical impulses traveled to the brain?

Time isn't a spacial dimension, but this does not mean it isn't a dimension at all. In contemporary theoretical physics there's at least 6.

If I wanted to google it I would have googled it, but this site claims to be a science site and so if there's some piece of information that is wrong it can be pointed out and the general information can be translated. I very much doubt you can understand quantum physics just from googling a few things. That the hell is wisegeek.com? At least on this site if some source is wrong about a scientific piece of information then someone can tell you. If you can just google everything what's the point of having this site? Let's just throw away the servers for this site and google everything. Unless the point of this site is not for googling everything but rather explaining things. Multiplication isn't that hard of a concept, pre-schoolers can learn it, there's people who've learned calculus at like age 6. It seems more like that people just want an excuse to not have to type a lot of stuff and still look credible. "When a chemical capable of causing an emotion such as anger get's into the blood, why does that allow you to perceive that emotion?" That's really not vague. BTW you can answer a question as vague as "what do particles do?" anyway, you can say "They do lots of things depending on the scale you look at them on. On a large scale like the world around you, they move about in seemingly predictable manners, but on the small scale it's much more complex. With today's current physics, it is known that all matter is consistent of really tiny pieces, pieces so small you cannot see them. These pieces can combine in different ways. What these pieces are made of is not entirely known, however experiments have shown they have properties that are somewhat like waves, like waves in an ocean, only they are waves in a type of field which can oscillate or "wave" in different manners. The smallest piece of matter that can retain it's properties can be an atom or molecule or combinations of them, depending on the material. An atom consists of particles in the center, and on the outside separated by much space are particles on the outside. On the inside, an atom has a clump of smaller particles stuck together called the "nucleus". The nucleus mainly consists of 3 particles: neutrons, protons and gluons. But what are these particles? Well in nature, there's something called electro-magnetism. Eletro-magnetism is a force that can allow objects to repel or attract each other..." and if you wanted me to go on I could and I'd be willing to for anyone that needed it.

Gravity I don't think stops at any distance, it get's weaker and it's strength indefinitely approaches 0, same with light and it's probability density. Light has probability density, gravity doesn't, gravity is just a field.

Ok I'm just going to stop because if you truly don't think the universe is deterministic you have no reason to be arguing with me and further more you are questioning the validity of the entire scientific community. There's no point arguing science with someone who doesn't consider science. Philosophy does not constitute proof and being in the philosophy section does not magically mean every scientist is wrong, I recommend you stop trolling. There is evidence that not every result can be predicted and there is no evidence that every result can be predicted, and there is a logical reason for why it can't, which you refuse to acknowledge.

Dude, all you gotta do or all anyone has to do is answer the question. How is it that hard for someone who claims to have knowledge in neuroscience? I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering about the question I asked. If you ask me you're the one who's being difficult. I can explain some basic properties of quantum physics to someone who's never studied quantum physics before, you should be able to explain some basic things in neuroscience that would answer or lead to answering the question about neuroscience if you have knowledge in neuroscience. It would take you "semesters" of math to work up to an integral, but if someone didn't know anything about it they would et a general concept if someone said "it's the area under a graph that's comprised of boxes. If you want perfect accuracy you have to make those boxes infinitesimally small. You can get an estimate the area by making boxes under the graph which all have the same base, and calculation the height by doing the operation that i given in the function and multiplying those results. For example, let's say I have y=x^2, for every x value, the y value will be squared. 1^2 is 1, 2^2 is 4, 3^2 is 9. Now, let's say we want the area from x=0 to x=1, and we make 4 boxes. The which of each box is 1/4, which is .25. The height of each box will vary. For the first box we have .25 * .25^2, then we add that to .25 * 2*.25^2 and the reason we add a *2 is because the distance that box is from the origin is .25*2, then we add .25 * 3*.25..."

It doesn't make sense to ask what was before the big bang because if we assume the big bang was the beginning of the universe then there was no "before" the big bang, time and distance did not exist before the beginning of the universe. Not only that, GR and QM "not being married" doesn't mean anything other than we need to tweak our physics a bit, but it is still scientifically confirmed that you cannot base the future measurements of particles off of previous measurements, which means they are not casually connected. There are no hidden variables, matter is quantized and therefore you cannot possess ever smaller amounts of matter and energy after a certain point, your just making random guess without evidence, not knowing about the big bang doesn't mean we should assume whatever we want about it, that logic makes no sense. The problem is you are not defining the set of what the probability is out of. Even if there are infinitesimally small values for a surface area, if I say "what are the chances of hitting 1 of 4 equal squares" will not only be different than "what are the chances of hitting 1/0 squares", but those probabilities are not 1/infinity. If you think you can contemplate speeds greater than the speed of light better than the physics of the entire human race then by all means go ahead and show us. The fact that you said "Quantum physics is Newtonian" shows you know nothing about what you are talking about. It is absolutely not like Newtonian physics and that's why there's problems using it on macroscopic levels. In order for a massive particle to travel greater than the speed of light it would need infinite energy, and we do not see particles with infinite energy. Sure, they occur everywhere all around you, and their correlation exists smaller than atoms can be, which should easily tell you that there are going to be unpredictable results because there are patterns which effect things that are by definition incalculable because of they fact that they have an infinitesimally small correlation which is smaller than atoms and particles. This is not to say however they are the "cause" of everything, fractal patterns wouldn't exist without atoms. Based on our current physics, because the exact location of measured particles which includes simply interactions is not casually connected, means that even if you could somehow go back in time, events would have a very high likelihood of not playing out exactly the same way. This means the universe cannot be deterministic. And educated guess is a hypothesis based off of evidence, we have no evidence that the every action in the universe can be predicted and therefore have no evidence that it is deterministic but we do have evidence that every specific action is not 100% predictable and therefore have evidence that it isn't deterministic. Multiverse theory has no evidence, the same matter can only have 1 observed result at a time, called an Eigenstate, multiple realities do not cope with this well. There are infinite possible things that can happen, but that doesn't mean they all will happen or all are happening. The property of matter seemingly existing in multiple locations can be accurately described using Dirac's relativistic version of Schrodinger's equation and quantum field theory and quantum chromodynamics.

Gravity and light have the same speed but they are entirely different things. Light is combination of an oscillation in an electric field and an oscillation in a magnetic field, while gravity is a distortion in the fabric of space or some kind og coupling with Higgs Bosons, they are completely different mathematical systems.

That sounds like a lot of misinterpretation. Objects are definitely moving but how they move depends on the frame of reference. And with "spin" it seems that it is it actual physical spin, it wasn't the right name for that property.

I'm not really sure what you're saying exactly, but not every part of nature is some Cartesian function.

Or just make any attempt whatsoever to answer my question before determining anything.

No Planck time and length aren't meaningless because there are phenomena which can happen over such distances and in such time, such as the exchange of bosons between particles in a nucleus or interactions with the strong force and quarks to keep them bound, how light moves through a liquid object or air, ect.

It's somewhat logical, but still mainly just a collection of extrapolations, especially when you deal with Planck time.

Well some chemistry and anatomy but not neuro science and neuro chemistry, try explaining it in layman's terms.

Or you're wrong. The difference is that your conjecture isn't backed up by any physics. It would be scientifically impossible to know at this point if the universe is deterministic if we didn't have our knowledge, but it is possible to say that it isn't deterministic because we see that measurements between particles have no causal connection to past and previous particles and those particles create patterns that correlate to an infinitesimally small and incalculable realms. If you are talking about an exact number out of considering all numbers at all times then everything has a 1/infinity chance of happening, there's a 1/infinity chance any value is ever obtained, but this does obviously not mean a hit cannot be made, obviously if you throw a dart at a dart board even though there are infinitely small surface areas which to hit it still has to hit something, so the notion that even if there's a 1/infinity chance means it's impossible is wrong. Its an extrapolation of complicated and not very well understood mathematics and science fueled by pop culture. I do not see another person around me looking around my room right now, and if there was then that would mean matter can cross between different planes of existence which means all realities should be viewed simultaneously, except we don't see any evidence of that. An observer has mass, yet somehow we see the same matter and another reality observer observes it doesn't something different, but if we both see the same matter then the matter that we are also made out of should be visible to each other so I should be able to see alternate realities. Aside from that problem, when measured matter goes into an Eigenstate, which means only 1 possible outcome is observable, which means there cannot be multiple observers observing the same matter in multiple states in the same instant of time, such as the cells in the body of an organism. No I'm answering it and saying "nope". The initial conditions wouldn't play out exactly the same because the events at the atomic scale which have fractal patterns that correlate on the macroscopic scales which will never enter the same exact states in any future time are not causally connected. Regardless of what you said, you still did not properly interpret the intent of Schrodinger when presenting that problem. It is absolutely not scientific to randomly guess at answers of which we have no evidence to base on and assume they are true.

Well what I'm saying is it takes n coordinates to descrie something in n dimensional space. If you want to describe the 4 dimensional coordate of something you use [x,y,z,t]. If you want 3 dimensions its [x,y,z] and 5 it's [x,y,z,t,u] and ect. Direction comes from using vectors or slopes in those dimensions. If I have the dimension time, just saying that doesn't mean anything, but if I say the 4th dimension coordinate increases according to some equation as other dimensions increase or decrease then I have something. Time is definitely a dimension because you can describe the 4 dimensional location of something using time. In the spacial coordinates (x,y,z) at time (t). A coordinate in time is like a location in the past or present or future.

There's NASA too, I know NASA is involved with the military, but I don't know how you would got about contacting the military through NASA, at least if you're in the USA.

But some of them you have to admit are good and are moral, especially those Buddhist ones and some of the Christian ones.