Strange

You have come up with an apparently logical hypothesis. The next step is to check if it corresponds to reality or not. For that you need evidence. Many apparently sensible ideas do not match how the brain or the universe actually works.

That was my first thought, too. And much more comfortable. But just in case:

If you look at the most distant objects observed, they have red-shifts that indicate the universe was about 1/8th to 1/12th the size it is now (the scale factor). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_distant_astronomical_objects

Indeed. You can measure the (unbounded) surface area of he Earth. For example by measuring the curvature (and assuming it is the same everywhere). Current measurements of the overall curvature of the universe show it to be pretty flat. Which either means that the universe is very, very large. Or it is infinite. I don't think there is any current cosmological model where the universe has any sort of edge or boundary.

But the 2D surface is an analogy for our existence in a 3D universe. In the analogy there is no inside the sphere, there is only the surface.

So,no evidence then.

That tissue of lies from the Daily Fail has already been debunked in another thread.

Thanks for that. I didn't know that Phi was named after Phidias. (I don't know if he is thought to be the first to use it, but was perhaps the first named/renowned person.) Organic growth often follows a Fibonacci series (which was, supposedly, first developed to illustrate the growth of rabbit populations). The ratio between terms in the Fibonacci series is (approximately) Phi. So the ratio is often seen in the natural world - in the shape of seashells, sunflower seeds, Romanesco broccoli, etc. That explains its (claimed) aesthetic appeal.

Err, no. That is not how intelligent discussion works. If you make a claim it is up to you to support it. It was an advert[/]. And so lacking in credibility. I don't have a point of view that needs to be proved. (Not that proof exists in science.) I am just asking you to support your claims. Seems reasonable to me.

And, of course, you have evidence for that?

No.

That would seem to confirm this as just some sort of folk belief or "meme". There has been a lot of research on the effects of caffeine. Yet despite this there is a popular belief that it is harmful in some way (lots of people talk about giving up on or reducing caffeine when they are on a "health kick" but there is no objective reason for this).

How do you know that this is a false belief? How do you know that the "conscious mind is subservient to the subconscious mind"? How do you know that the subconscious mind is not free to make decisions? As this is your "learned" opinion, you should have no problem providing evidence to support these positions.

Yes.

Can you make do with 10 pieces that are 12mm thick?

No. That sounds like nonsense. How about providing some science to support this? Citation needed. (Sounds like bollocks to me.)

Before I report you as a spammer, I will just point out that this is bollocks. p.s. I know it makes more work for the mods when we reply to spammers, but someone had already replied to another post of his so ... But sorry if I have added to your burden!

So the brain is conscious because it is conscious. Brilliant. I am sure philosophers will be celebrating that insight for decades. Your sense of identity is a side effect of the form of consciousness and self-awareness that the brain produces. 1. That is about age-related decline not loss of function through lack of use. 2. Please try and use science to support your articles, not marketing material from someone selling their services and products. 3. So try again. Please provide a scientific reference for "You will lose the intelligence of the brain if you don't use it"

Your local glass company? If they can't get it for you, they can probably tell you who can.

What do you mean by a "conscious object"? What is the difference between the brain creating consciousness and the brain being a conscious object? Do you have any evidence for this?

Absolutely not. Lots of very implausible things happen (implausible is not the same as impossible). * Or implausible.

Implausibility, I think...

Why? I don't understand. What "challenges" are you talking about? Why would the brain lose intelligence? Why? And in what way?

And that is part of the problem of your subjective "it looks to me" approach. Experts can tell a lot from just part of a skull, even if to you they look vaguely similar.

That will be one of those "alternative" facts we have heard so much about recently.