How we're able to think

[Ringer]

 

I think your overall problem is that you haven't tried to really think about your idea. Having novel ideas is a wonderful thing, but ideas need to thought about in every way before really considering the possibility they are true. This type of idea stomping is common practice is scientists heads when they think about things (I assume since I can't read minds) and come up with novel ideas. Many of us have had ridiculous ideas, we just tend to be critical enough about ideas that many are torn apart before our mouths could even get them out. This is what is necessary for any scientific ideas. If it passes that test one would look up the things involved with the idea to make sure they have a decent grasp on what they are using in their ideas, many more are torn apart at this stage. Then comes the sharing of the idea with others. This is can be, depending on how critical of yourself you are, the most aggravating for people not engrossed in this type of thing. Scientists tend to live in a world where every idea is thrown into a grinder, torched, torn apart, etc to see if it can survive. It may seem like they are just being hateful when they tear an idea down, especially because we tend to forget not everyone is used to that sort of thing, but they really are just doing what comes naturally. It may seem like being close minded or condescending but think of it this way, to come up with ways to disprove an idea we have to think of it as true and see if the implications are met or, if there is not enough information to see if the implication are right/wrong, devise a novel way to test the idea. Science isn't a close minded enterprise, it's more of an open minded but throw a lot of stuff out enterprise.

[A-wal]

I don't know much at all about them to be honest, but I was thinking that maybe they loose a bit of energy after they've passed through brain matter and that bit of energy is what thoughts are. This really is just wild speculation. It's fun though.

What makes you think I sounded confident? That wasn't how it was meant. I know very little about particle physics because I haven't looked in to it, and wouldn't state anything about it confidently. It didn't interest me like relativity did. It was just an idea. You see I'm not scared of being wrong. I like it because it means I've learned something.

A-wal,

 

Ringer's comment IS relevant. He is using a modus tollens on you. He's showing that your hypothesis has implications, and those implications are absurd! So if your hypothesis (A) necessarily leads to Ringer's implication of your hypothesis (B), and it does, and B is false (it is) then A is necessarily false. Understand?

 

If animal brains are powered by solar neutrinos, then larger and denser brains (per animal body mass) will interact with more neutrinos (per animal body mass) and presumably be more "powered" (this is so silly I can't type it with a straight face). This ain't the case. Your hypothesis is false.

 

The only place you may have any recourse is were I said "presumably" above. I made an assumption that more neutrinos leads to more brain power. The only hope you have of not being falsified is if my assumption does not represent your hypothesis. I'm sure you'll say it doesn't because all the "evidence" you've presented thus far has required you to ignore physics and substitute it with your particular brand of gobeldy-gook deep fried insanity.

 

You may think I'm insulting you A-wal. Let me assure you that I am not. I'm merely frustrated that you've simply ignored the fact that there is NO WAY an appreciable amount of neutrinos can interact with biological tissue with a collision frequency comparable to the rate at which neurons fire in the brain. Have you ever read anything about neuroscience or neutrino physics? If not, you are insulting all of the hard working scientist and students who are striving to better those fields or who have already bettered it.

 

Science is not a: let's see who can make up the coolest story contest. That is just nonsense.

 

Do you want to be a pusher of nonsense or a collector of knowledge who is willing to learn from others? All of us who get paid to do science began as people who didn't know jack-shit and we learned from authoritative books and professionals. Please join us.

How does that prove anything. Elephants have bigger brains. So what? You could apply that logic independently of this idea. So it's irrelevant.

 

Now why would you be so offended. You must either feel very threatened by this idea (good), be offended that I had the cheek to have an idea (how dare I?), or you're just a twat for no reason (you're in good company). Care to elaborate?

 

I think - actually I know - that could go a long way to removing some of the problems you've encountered in the past. You are still going to have your ideas attacked, but there will be more inclination to try to explain things to you.

Really? You think so?

 

I think your overall problem is that you haven't tried to really think about your idea. Having novel ideas is a wonderful thing, but ideas need to thought about in every way before really considering the possibility they are true. This type of idea stomping is common practice is scientists heads when they think about things (I assume since I can't read minds) and come up with novel ideas. Many of us have had ridiculous ideas, we just tend to be critical enough about ideas that many are torn apart before our mouths could even get them out. This is what is necessary for any scientific ideas. If it passes that test one would look up the things involved with the idea to make sure they have a decent grasp on what they are using in their ideas, many more are torn apart at this stage. Then comes the sharing of the idea with others. This is can be, depending on how critical of yourself you are, the most aggravating for people not engrossed in this type of thing. Scientists tend to live in a world where every idea is thrown into a grinder, torched, torn apart, etc to see if it can survive. It may seem like they are just being hateful when they tear an idea down, especially because we tend to forget not everyone is used to that sort of thing, but they really are just doing what comes naturally. It may seem like being close minded or condescending but think of it this way, to come up with ways to disprove an idea we have to think of it as true and see if the implications are met or, if there is not enough information to see if the implication are right/wrong, devise a novel way to test the idea. Science isn't a close minded enterprise, it's more of an open minded but throw a lot of stuff out enterprise.

Criticism of the idea I can take but that was a lot more than that. The fact that you felt the need to make excuses for him probably shows that you agree it wasn't warranted. I said this is wild speculation, I was asked to elaborate, I said I wasn't sure about this, and I admitted that I don't know much about particle physics and I'm out of my comfort zone.

[Ringer]

Criticism of the idea I can take but that was a lot more than that. The fact that you felt the need to make excuses for him probably shows that you agree it wasn't warranted. I said this is wild speculation, I was asked to elaborate, I said I wasn't sure about this, and I admitted that I don't know much about particle physics and I'm out of my comfort zone.

 

No, I agree with wholeheartedly with what was said before my reply, I just felt that it might be necessary to elaborate on why you are getting critical responses.

 

Now to elaborate as to why my earlier comment was relevant. You may think that the brain size/density argument may not be valid, but it is. Mainly because you have not defined what type of thinking you are referring to. There is not a single holistic thought process, it is more of a amalgamation of semi-specialized regions acting with and against each other. Since you neither gave a preference towards a type of thinking that uses neutrinos, the argument is valid because all neurons would use them. If all neurons use them more neurons or neuronal density should increase with increased thinking ability. Now if you want to only say only cortical folding uses this ability and gives rise to consciousness you would run into problems explaining why there is no structural difference between cortical folds and, say, neurons of the hypothalamus to interact with these particles. You would also have to explain how neutrinos give rise to any sort of measurable interaction that is not the result of a local graded potential or an action potential. There are more if you would like me to go on, but I think you get the idea.