A naturally constructed transmitter..? the brain

[Animal]

I dont know if this is the right section but my idea/question has something to do with evolution so I just stuck it here..

 

I've been interested in buddhism for about a year and recently I've been thinking about reincarnation.

 

I hope this makes sense.. im not good with words. Does anyone think its possible that over time, advances in evolution constructed a device that could transmit what we call consciousness? I don't really believe that at the moment someone dies waves are tranmitted to some zygote somewhere. I believe in the possibility of some sort of shared consciousness.. does this make sense to anyone??

[Moonquake]

Does anyone think its possible that over time, advances in evolution constructed a device that could transmit what we call consciousness?

Would this provide reproductive adavantage for an individual? Enough to outweigh the energy/resource cost of constructing such a thing? Even if there were a possible mechanism by which it could occur?

[bascule]

IDoes anyone think its possible that over time, advances in evolution constructed a device that could transmit what we call consciousness?

 

No. What would the advantage be?

 

I believe in the possibility of some sort of shared consciousness.. does this make sense to anyone??

 

The idea of a collective consciousness, especially one accessed through some sort of quantum effect, is very much prevolent. I don't ascribe to it at all and personally think it's quite silly.

[Moonquake]

I believe in the possibility of some sort of shared consciousness

Why?

[Animal]

Man I hate when people answer questions with questions

 

I wasn't looking for anyone to prove what I was saying. I just wanted to know what you guys think.

 

And yes I believe in the possibility that there are things that we don't yet understand and as of now are impossible to prove or disprove with science. That doesn't mean I believe they are true.

[SkepticLance]

Animal,

I am going to give you two answers.

 

1. In science, there is an unwritten law that says : "If you can't measure it, it doesn't exist." By this, there is no reincarnation.

 

2. I have often thought that there might be a kind of equivalent, if not quite reincarnation itself. No magic. My line of reasoning goes a bit like this ...

 

It is widely believed that each of us has a physical 'double'. someone who looks very like we do. Almost enough to fool your wife .....

If that is the case, what about a mental double. Perhaps over a 10,000 year period, in which a trillion people are born, live, and die, one of them is so close to you in a mental / personality sense, that it is equivalent to you living again. Obviously that persons memories will be different, but so are yours with each decade that passes.

[scicop]

Actually I have to correct you SkepticLance on your first answer. It should read... "If you can't measure it, it is un-quantifiable or un-detectable s of yet, until further technological developments/reagents are available".

 

 

 

Animal' date='

I am going to give you two answers.

 

1. In science, there is an unwritten law that says : "If you can't measure it, it doesn't exist." By this, there is no reincarnation.

 

2. I have often thought that there might be a kind of equivalent, if not quite reincarnation itself. No magic. My line of reasoning goes a bit like this ...

 

It is widely believed that each of us has a physical 'double'. someone who looks very like we do. Almost enough to fool your wife .....

If that is the case, what about a mental double. Perhaps over a 10,000 year period, in which a trillion people are born, live, and die, one of them is so close to you in a mental / personality sense, that it is equivalent to you living again. Obviously that persons memories will be different, but so are yours with each decade that passes.[/quote']

[YT2095]

the electrical pathways of our brains measure in Microwatts or less, the frequency is also very low (in only 10`s of Hz), even with Very powerfull Amplification and filtering these "waves" can only be detected within a few cms of the skull.

I`ts Highly unlikely that any signal could "Escape" over such a distance and be Strong enough and Coherant enough to "Imprint" itself upon another similar mechanism.

 

my vote goes for No.

[THE V]

the electrical pathways of our brains measure in Microwatts or less' date=' the frequency is also very low (in only 10`s of Hz), even with Very powerfull Amplification and filtering these "waves" can only be detected within a few cms of the skull.

I`ts Highly unlikely that any signal could "Escape" over such a distance and be Strong enough and Coherant enough to "Imprint" itself upon another similar mechanism.

 

my vote goes for No.[/quote']

 

^problem with scientist is they always have to have an imperical answer to every question

 

In my opinion you are delving into the area of mysticism. In this area there is no imperical evidence so science is of little use as it only deals in measurable units. There really is no answer that we can say except that it is a possibility. It is also a possibility that our universe is just one drop of mucus in an aliens nose. Basically these are unanswerable questions given the current information that we have.

[SkepticLance]

To The V.

Am I to assume that you consider yourself to be non scientific?

 

My view is based on history, and says that non scientific modes of thought are useless, because they have achieved nothing.

 

There is traditional wisdom, which lead to ultra slow progress by trial and error, and there is science that leads to massively rapid progress, since it is right! And there is all the rest, which basically amounts to a load of horse manure.

[daneeka]

Non-scientific modes of thought have obviously achieved bugger all regarding technological progress. However, I think science has achieved very little with regard to societal progress; and I don't think it ever will. Further, to consider non-scientific modes of thought as useless is a little harsh don't you think? There's a lot to be said for the benefits of non-scientific reckoning (spritualism; self-reflection; meditation; theology; the Arts etc.).

 

What's the rush anyway? I'm sure the planet will be here for quite a while; and it looks pretty cool when you're not constantly attempting to view it though the esoteric eyes of science...

[SkepticLance]

daneeka.

How harsh my comments are seen to be will depend on what we are talking about. This thread began discussing reincarnation. If the question is : Is it true? Then I have to say, speaking as someone who thinks scientifically and looks for proper empirical evidence all the time, it is a load of horse manure.

 

Obviously if your interest is something to give you emotional satisfaction, such as art, culture, literature, romance, or even religion, then that is fine. You will not advance the course of human knowledge through those routes, but you should gain that emotional satisfaction, and good luck to you.

[ecoli]

daneeka.

How harsh my comments are seen to be will depend on what we are talking about. This thread began discussing reincarnation. If the question is : Is it true? Then I have to say' date=' speaking as someone who thinks scientifically and looks for proper empirical evidence all the time, it is a load of horse manure.[/quote']

 

Basically, like all topics that try and relate science and religion, you will find that the too, while can be simultaneously accepted, cannot be used to explain each other.

[bascule]

Non-scientific modes of thought have obviously achieved bugger all regarding technological progress. However, I think science has achieved very little with regard to societal progress; and I don't think it ever will.

 

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”

 

-- Charles Darwin