How we're able to think

[A-wal]

Either the organic lump of mush inside our heads are somehow capable of producing consciousness on their own, or our brains are ariels that pick up some kind of signal (probably neutrinos from the sun) and turn them into thoughts (easily testable). I just think it's a bit more believable that our complex thought processes and perceptions need an external source of energy rather than being generated purely by a lump of organic mush inside our skulls, and it makes me feel more connected to the universe when I think about it which is always nice. We'll find out soon when people go to Mars and find that their IQs drops dramatically.

Edited October 8, 2012 by A-wal

[John Cuthber]

Is that meant as an invitation to count the logical fallacies?

[Bignose]

There may be (plenty of) logical fallacies, and while I disagree with the idea (our body creates plenty of its own energy, i.e. from food), at least there is a testable prediction in there. Namely, that mankind's IQ will significantly drop if they were to live to Mars. What would really help, however, is would be some sort of prediction by how much. And, frankly, with a well timed and conducted experiment, you don't even have to send somebody to Mars to prove this. This difference between aphelion and perihelion is about 5 million kilometers. Enough that there should be a significant difference in the sun's neutrino flux from aphelion to perihelion. Again, with some well designed experiments, there should be a demonstrable difference in mankind's IQ from 3 January to 3 July in any given year, including demonstrable trends increasing or decreasing depending on which side of 3 January the date the test is conducted.

[A-wal]

Is that meant as an invitation to count the logical fallacies?

Just a wild thought.

 

I've noticed that people here seem very reluctant to engage in any kind of meaningful debate. It seems they'd much rather just post cheap undeserved digs for no reason.

 

I don't take this idea particularly seriously, I just thought it was worth discussing. My last three topic titles all have ?s for a reason. They're just a bit of fun. This is the kind of stuff that belongs in the speculation section, or did I miss the point?

 

This actually makes more sense to me than our brains being able to do what the do without any outside help, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's wrong. May I ask why you think it's a logical fallacy?

 

There may be (plenty of) logical fallacies, and while I disagree with the idea (our body creates plenty of its own energy, i.e. from food), at least there is a testable prediction in there. Namely, that mankind's IQ will significantly drop if they were to live to Mars. What would really help, however, is would be some sort of prediction by how much. And, frankly, with a well timed and conducted experiment, you don't even have to send somebody to Mars to prove this. This difference between aphelion and perihelion is about 5 million kilometers. Enough that there should be a significant difference in the sun's neutrino flux from aphelion to perihelion. Again, with some well designed experiments, there should be a demonstrable difference in mankind's IQ from 3 January to 3 July in any given year, including demonstrable trends increasing or decreasing depending on which side of 3 January the date the test is conducted.

Oh really? I thought that difference was marginal at best? There's no noticable change in the Earths temperature. It doesn't have to be IQ, that was just an example. It could be manifested as needing more sleep. Sleep is for our minds, not our bodies. We need to defrag, so maybe that takes a bit longer. Edited October 8, 2012 by A-wal

[Bignose]

Oh really? I thought that difference was marginal at best?

 

A well designed experiment could find even 'marginal' differences. If going to Mars would be 'dramatic' per your own word, then again, I would think that differences could be measured here on Earth.

 

But, really, this demonstrates the incompleteness of the idea as posed. I didn't participate in your other thread, but this one is similar in that to truly be useful, you need numerical predictions.

 

For example. What do you consider dramatic? What do you consider marginal? How many neutrinos does it take to equal one IQ point? With numerical predictions, you can actually see what kind of experiment it would actually take on Earth? I.e. would it take 1,000 people doing tests once a month? or 100,000 people doing tests every day? Without numerics, its really all just guesses.

 

Edited to add: http://owl.phy.queensu.ca/talks/desert03.ppt even shows a significant measurement difference between day and night, for example -- see slide #21

Edited October 8, 2012 by Bignose

[A-wal]

A well designed experiment could find even 'marginal' differences. If going to Mars would be 'dramatic' per your own word, then again, I would think that differences could be measured here on Earth.

 

But, really, this demonstrates the incompleteness of the idea as posed. I didn't participate in your other thread, but this one is similar in that to truly be useful, you need numerical predictions.

 

For example. What do you consider dramatic? What do you consider marginal? How many neutrinos does it take to equal one IQ point? With numerical predictions, you can actually see what kind of experiment it would actually take on Earth? I.e. would it take 1,000 people doing tests once a month? or 100,000 people doing tests every day? Without numerics, its really all just guesses.

Chill the smeg out dude! (: You're taking this far too seriously. It's just an idea. You know, speculation. How could I even know the details for this? I'd just be pulling predictions out of thin air.

 

I edited my last post to make it even more vague.

 

There are very definite predictions in my other thread. You best one is the rope paradox. Besides, if it were to make the exact same prediction as general relativity then it would still kick its arse because it's so much simpler and it's self consistent. It explains more using less and it uses a well established model of acceleration to do it, one that actually makes sense.

Edited October 8, 2012 by A-wal

[ACG52]

Chill the smeg out dude! (: You're taking this far too seriously. It's just an idea. You know, speculation. How could I even know the details for this? I'd just be pulling presictions out of thin air.

 

 

Speculation Forum Rules.

 

1. <LI>Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.

[A-wal]

Speculation Forum Rules.

 

1. <LI>Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.

You again! I didn't realise you that you're a mod. Did you not read the bit about Mars? That's a prediction! It's just not a very precise one.

[ACG52]

I didn't realise you that you're a mod.

 

I'm not. If I were, this thread would have been moved to the trash already.

 

But the mods at this site have more patience than I.

[A-wal]

And a lot more intelligence. (;

[Bignose]

Chill the smeg out dude! (: You're taking this far too seriously. It's just an idea. You know, speculation. How could I even know the details for this? I'd just be pulling predictions out of thin air.

 

I edited my last post to make it even more vague.

 

There are very definite predictions in my other thread. You best one is the rope paradox. Besides, if it were to make the exact same prediction as general relativity then it would still kick its arse because it's so much simpler and it's self consistent. It explains more using less and it uses a well established model of acceleration to do it, one that actually makes sense.

 

sorry, thought I was helping you develop your idea. Sheesh, if you are this rude to people trying to make your idea stronger, then what are you ever going to do to someone trying to argue against your idea? (Oh wait, I read that other thread...) Good luck ever trying to actually show your work to other real scientists -- if you take this much offense to anonymous Internet peer review, how are you ever going to handle people asking you pointed questions face-to-face like at a conference, or getting a rejection letter from a journal?

[Ophiolite]

@ A-wal: 28 posts and you act like you are God, or Satan's, gift to the forum.

 

You complain about members being reluctant to engage in meaningful debate, then whine and become abusive when Bignose seeks to engage in exactly that. He not only shows your idea respect, but offers specific suggestions on how it could be tested. He gives you sound advice on the weaknesses in your proposal as it stands. His approach is thoughtful and relevant. And your response? Chill the smeg out dude!

 

Rude, ungrateful and - as ACG52 pointed out - behaving contrary to forum rules.

 

And all so unecessary. You asked interesting questions - aren't you mature enought to handle the answers? Apparently not, and that is your loss.

 

Edited to make clear the post was directed at A-wal , as Bignose posted in between A-wal and my reply.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Ophiolite

[A-wal]

sorry, thought I was helping you develop your idea. Sheesh, if you are this rude to people trying to make your idea stronger, then what are you ever going to do to someone trying to argue against your idea? (Oh wait, I read that other thread...) Good luck ever trying to actually show your work to other real scientists -- if you take this much offense to anonymous Internet peer review, how are you ever going to handle people asking you pointed questions face-to-face like at a conference, or getting a rejection letter from a journal?

Who said anything about conferences and journals? That's your life, not mine. Why is it such hard work talking to you people. It's like your from another bloody planet. You wouldn't stand a chance in the real world. It's just an idea and you pounced and went into one about how I have to give more precise predictions. What would this and that be, blah blah. How the hell should I know? How could anyone realistically answer the questions that you asked? Get a sodding grip! This was supposed to be a just light hearted thread about something that may or may not be true and you turned it into this. Can't you people just have a normal conversation?

 

@ A-wal: 28 posts and you act like you are God, or Satan's, gift to the forum.

(: God/Satans gift, just because I speak my mind and give back twice what I get when someone makes a cheap dig for no good reason? I'm starting to think you've all got real self esteem issues looking at the way you all talk to each other. Keep that crap up with me and you'll see what I'm like when I'm not just playing.

 

You complain about members being reluctant to engage in meaningful debate, then whine and become abusive when Bignose seeks to engage in exactly that.

Yea that must look bad actually come to think of it, but I wrote that before he posted his reply and then edited it after.

 

He not only shows your idea respect, but offers specific suggestions on how it could be tested.

Which was proceed by yet another cheap dig about logical fallacies without elaborating on what exactly those fallacies are.

 

He gives you sound advice on the weaknesses in your proposal as it stands. His approach is thoughtful and relevant. And your response? Chill the smeg out dude!

 

Rude, ungrateful and - as ACG52 pointed out - behaving contrary to forum rules.

 

And all so unecessary. You asked interesting questions - aren't you mature enought to handle the answers? Apparently not, and that is your loss.

Chill the smeg out is not abusive. This wasn't supposed to be a confrontational thread. I didn't turn it into this. I'm actually a nice person when I'm talking to other nice people.

[uncool]

Who said anything about conferences and journals? That's your life, not mine. Why is it such hard work talking to you people.

Because the assumption is that since you decided to seek this place out that you want to talk science. And science is just that - hard work. If you manage to get a positive result in an experiment, journals are exactly what you should do - publish it so that it's seen. Conferences so it gets spread around. What do you expect to do with this idea?

It's like your from another bloody planet. You wouldn't stand a chance in the real world. It's just an idea and you pounced and went into one about how I have to give more precise predictions. What would this and that be, blah blah. How the hell should I know? How could anyone realistically answer the questions that you asked?

These are questions that are asked of every hypothesis in science. This is how science gets done. The rigid skepticism is necessary. And every theory has an answer to just those questions.

Get a sodding grip! This was supposed to be a just light hearted thread about something that may or may not be true and you turned it into this. Can't you people just have a normal conversation?

Except that you've chosen to present a hypothesis. This is what happens to all hypotheses. This is Science Forums - hypotheses are tested to their breaking point.

 

Further, you did ask for "meaningful debate". This is how meaningful debate gets done in science - ideas get turned into hypotheses; hypotheses get turned into predictions; predictions get tested. Science is a trial by fire. Always. This isn't people trying to be mean - this is people trying to stress-test your idea. Isn't that what you want?

 

Yes, it's something that may or may not be true. Are you interested in simply presenting something that may or may not be true - in which case, I would like to present the idea that we're all moved around by invisible blue centaurs when we're not looking - or in determining whether it is true? We're interested in the possibility of the latter.

(: God/Satans gift, just because I speak my mind and give back twice what I get when someone makes a cheap dig for no good reason?

Because you give back twice what you think you get when no one is making any cheap digs.

I'm starting to think you've all got real self esteem issues looking at the way you all talk to each other.

You may want to reconsider. We experience exactly this environment - this attention focused on us - day in, day out. And we thrive on it.

Keep that crap up with me and you'll see what I'm like when I'm not just playing.

That "crap" is skepticism. No idea is accepted until it is tested - and that's what's happening to your idea. People are testing your idea.

Yea that must look bad actually come to think of it, but I wrote that before he posted his reply and then edited it after.

 

Which was proceed by yet another cheap dig about logical fallacies without elaborating on what exactly those fallacies are.

 

Chill the smeg out is not abusive. This wasn't supposed to be a confrontational thread. I didn't turn it into this. I'm actually a nice person when I'm talking to other nice people.

It is abusive when it is, in effect, the entire response. What Bignose has done is he has considered your idea and moved it along the path - he has taken it from hypothesis to prediction. And your response is basically to dismiss what he has done entirely. That is how "chill the smeg out" is abusive - it dismisses the efforts of others to help you towards what we assume is your goal - to find out whether you are right or wrong.

=Uncool-

Edited October 9, 2012 by uncool

[Ophiolite]

Thanks to uncool for saying almost every thing I was going to say, only saying it better: that saved me a bunch of time. I'll add this:

 

Why is it such hard work talking to you people. It's like your from another bloody planet. You wouldn't stand a chance in the real world.

I mention this A-wal in the hope it may cause you to reconsider your position. In the real world, talking the way I do here - indeed, because I talk the way I do here, the real world rewards me with a six figure income. In the real world, based on your performance here, I wouldn't even bring you in for an interview.

[hypervalent_iodine]

And a lot more intelligence. (;

 

!

Moderator Note

A-wal,

 

I have warned you in threads and I have warned you in PM. This kind of behavior is not tolerated here. If you can't play nice, I'm going to take away your toys for a week. Consider this your last warning.

[Moontanman]

Either the organic lump of mush inside our heads are somehow capable of producing consciousness on their own, or our brains are ariels that pick up some kind of signal (probably neutrinos from the sun) and turn them into thoughts (easily testable).

 

Our brains pick up a signal composed of neutrinos and turns them into thoughts? So you are suggesting that the sun is the source of consciousness? Are you suggesting that the sun is conscious? Is the signal intelligent? If the signal is not intelligent then how does it produce thoughts? What exactly are you saying here?

 

I just think it's a bit more believable that our complex thought processes and perceptions need an external source of energy rather than being generated purely by a lump of organic mush inside our skulls, and it makes me feel more connected to the universe when I think about it which is always nice. We'll find out soon when people go to Mars and find that their IQs drops dramatically.

 

Since neutrinos are hardly stopped by the earth much less that little bit of mush inside our heads what would you propose as the mechanism for detecting neutrinos with our brains? How could a particle that can travel through light years of lead with no effective release of energy power something requiring as much energy as our brains?

 

 

 

If our intelligence depends on the neutrino flux why is there not a noticeable effect on our intelligence from day to night? Differences in such hard to detect things as gravity fields can be detected down to parts per billion, we should, at least in theory, be able to detect any changes in ourselves caused by differences in the neutrino flux from the sun...

Edited October 9, 2012 by Moontanman

[zapatos]

Who said anything about conferences and journals? That's your life, not mine. Why is it such hard work talking to you people.

Please don't yell at me; this comment is meant to be helpful.

 

I think you have confused posting on a science forum with chatting with your buddy while looking up at the stars after ingestng some illegal substance.

 

If you go to the bank and sit in front of a loan officer, the conversation will not go well if you say "I think that rather than talking about a specific business plan, it is more reasonable that people will just periodically send me money, and I can then repay the loan with what they send". You need to be prepared to discuss in terms of finance and business.

 

Likewise, if you go to a science forum you should be prepared to discuss in terms of science.

[swansont]

Why Mars? Couldn't this be tested near a nuclear reactor? Do people notice they get smarter while it's running, and revert to normal during shutdown? Or get smarter near the plant? The solar flux is 6x10^10/cm^2-s, but reactors put out about 3 orders of magnitude more, (though that will drop off with distance; I'm not sure what the reactor power was in the Cowan–Reines neutrino experiment that gave 5 x 10^13/cm^2-s).

[A-wal]

Because the assumption is that since you decided to seek this place out that you want to talk science. And science is just that - hard work. If you manage to get a positive result in an experiment, journals are exactly what you should do - publish it so that it's seen. Conferences so it gets spread around. What do you expect to do with this idea?

 

These are questions that are asked of every hypothesis in science. This is how science gets done. The rigid skepticism is necessary. And every theory has an answer to just those questions.

 

Except that you've chosen to present a hypothesis. This is what happens to all hypotheses. This is Science Forums - hypotheses are tested to their breaking point.

 

Further, you did ask for "meaningful debate". This is how meaningful debate gets done in science - ideas get turned into hypotheses; hypotheses get turned into predictions; predictions get tested. Science is a trial by fire. Always. This isn't people trying to be mean - this is people trying to stress-test your idea. Isn't that what you want?

 

Yes, it's something that may or may not be true. Are you interested in simply presenting something that may or may not be true - in which case, I would like to present the idea that we're all moved around by invisible blue centaurs when we're not looking - or in determining whether it is true? We're interested in the possibility of the latter.

 

Because you give back twice what you think you get when no one is making any cheap digs.

 

You may want to reconsider. We experience exactly this environment - this attention focused on us - day in, day out. And we thrive on it.

 

That "crap" is skepticism. No idea is accepted until it is tested - and that's what's happening to your idea. People are testing your idea.

 

It is abusive when it is, in effect, the entire response. What Bignose has done is he has considered your idea and moved it along the path - he has taken it from hypothesis to prediction. And your response is basically to dismiss what he has done entirely. That is how "chill the smeg out" is abusive - it dismisses the efforts of others to help you towards what we assume is your goal - to find out whether you are right or wrong.

=Uncool-

Okay, maybe I've been a little too over defensive, but there have been some genuinely uncalled for cheap digs as well. Can we start again and I'll take the chip off my shoulder. Sorry Bignose. You were asking unanswerable questions but I shouldn'd have over reacted.

 

Our brains pick up a signal composed of neutrinos and turns them into thoughts? So you are suggesting that the sun is the source of consciousness? Are you suggesting that the sun is conscious? Is the signal intelligent?

No I'm saying they become consciousness when they interact with our brains, somehow. Maybe it emits a signal at just the right frequency to absorb them or something.

 

If our intelligence depends on the neutrino flux why is there not a noticeable effect on our intelligence from day to night? Differences in such hard to detect things as gravity fields can be detected down to parts per billion, we should, at least in theory, be able to detect any changes in ourselves caused by differences in the neutrino flux from the sun...

You've answered your own question here. They pass straight through the Earth.

 

Please don't yell at me; this comment is meant to be helpful.

 

I think you have confused posting on a science forum with chatting with your buddy while looking up at the stars after ingestng some illegal substance.

 

If you go to the bank and sit in front of a loan officer, the conversation will not go well if you say "I think that rather than talking about a specific business plan, it is more reasonable that people will just periodically send me money, and I can then repay the loan with what they send". You need to be prepared to discuss in terms of finance and business.

 

Likewise, if you go to a science forum you should be prepared to discuss in terms of science.

LOL! (: I thought the speculations section would be a bit different.

 

Why Mars? Couldn't this be tested near a nuclear reactor? Do people notice they get smarter while it's running, and revert to normal during shutdown? Or get smarter near the plant? The solar flux is 6x10^10/cm^2-s, but reactors put out about 3 orders of magnitude more, (though that will drop off with distance; I'm not sure what the reactor power was in the CowanReines neutrino experiment that gave 5 x 10^13/cm^2-s).

I didn't know anything about that. Edited October 9, 2012 by A-wal

[Moontanman]

 

 

No I'm saying they become consciousness when they interact with our brains, somehow. Maybe it emits a signal at just the right frequency to absorb them or something.

 

So a signal absorbs neutrinos when the mass of the earth can't?

 

You've answered your own question here. They pass straight through the Earth.

 

 

 

If the Earth can't absorb them how does that mushy thing between your ears do it?

[zapatos]

LOL! (: I thought the speculations section would be a bit different.

I can see why you would think so, but no. Ideas in speculations are treated the same as they are elsewhere on the site. It is just that in speculations it doesn't have to be 'current accepted mainstream science'. The idea is that you don't want someone who is a novice to science to be reading a speculative thread in the 'physics' section and think they are reading mainstream science. It can be very misleading for somone who is here just to learn.

[A-wal]

So a signal absorbs neutrinos when the mass of the earth can't?

 

 

 

If the Earth can't absorb them how does that mushy thing between your ears do it?

Not sure. Maybe it doesn't actually have to absorb them, just use them as they pass through.

 

I can see why you would think so, but no. Ideas in speculations are treated the same as they are elsewhere on the site. It is just that in speculations it doesn't have to be 'current accepted mainstream science'. The idea is that you don't want someone who is a novice to science to be reading a speculative thread in the 'physics' section and think they are reading mainstream science. It can be very misleading for somone who is here just to learn.

I see. That makes sense.

[Moontanman]

Not sure. Maybe it doesn't actually have to absorb them, just use them as they pass through.

 

Use them as they pass through? That makes no sense...

[jeskill]

Just a suggestion, but you might want to consider doing a bit of research into what's already been learned about the brain before creating your own theories. Neuroscience is a fascinating and ever-changing field, and the experiments/results show that our brain is not just "mush".

 

Check this video out" about what we know about how the brain learns, or this article about how memories are stored and retrieved. You may also want to consider looking up how scientists define consciousness.