Le Repteux Posted July 17, 2014 Author Share Posted July 17, 2014 There are waves for sure, and I suggest that they circulate in a loop that stays in the mind, which is a confined area, but since they would have to move around to be manipulated, I don't know if we can call them stationary or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 (edited) LR, Ophiliote's request should be easy to fulfill if you had reviewed the current literature. There is a technique called magnetoencephalography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoencephalography (usually abbreviated MEG) which can detect the magnetic fields caused by electric currents in the brain. Not to mention MRI, CT, PET, EEG, and so on. All of these are techniques for imaging what is going on in the brain. Surely, if your idea was right, there would be evidence published on the results from one of these many different imaging techniques. Why don't you review some of the literature (such as http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/07/10/1410963111.full.pdf+html that was announced just yesterday) and look for evidence of your idea. This would actually be something productive rather than your repetition of just saying that you believe they exist. On the other hand, if you haven't reviewed the literature, may I recommend that you spend some time educating yourself on the best knowledge we have on the brain today before you just toss out a major different concept on how the brain works. I mean, even if your idea is right, you should be able to cite many examples that fit your idea instead of just hoping that your idea is right, and to be able to cite those examples, you need to be familiar with the current literature. Edited July 18, 2014 by Bignose 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Repteux Posted July 19, 2014 Author Share Posted July 19, 2014 Hi Bignose, thank's for the links! I know about the techniques used to investigate the brain, but I thought that Ophiolite wanted some proof of the standing waves I am talking about, and I never saw any hypotheses of the kind about mind, so I do not see why there should be any evidence of it in the data. You suggest that I become an expert in the matter before risking an hypotheses, but this is precisely why I am here for: I am here to consult experts in order to gain some time, because I am too old to become one, and I would like that idea to be tested before I leave. Experts should be able to know if it fits the observations, which is the only thing we can ask a new theory to fit to, and if they would by chance agree that it did, then some of them could be interested in doing some experiments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 Standing waves require mechanical or electromagnetic waves to be propagated in a cavity whose size is an integer multiple of the wavelength. There is not one part of that definition which applies to the neurological activity of the brain. The "waves" are patterns of synchronised neural chemical activity. The reason for patterns of activity are due to feedback between groups of neurons. The frequencies are determined by the rate at which neurons react and the connectivity between them (and nothing to do with the size/shape of the skull). So a classic example of a natural oscialltor and nothing to do with standing waves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Repteux Posted July 20, 2014 Author Share Posted July 20, 2014 Hi Strange, To me, the frequency of a natural oscillator is determined by an intrinsic standing wave mechanism. Atoms are natural oscillators whose frequencies are determined by the intrinsic standing wave mechanism of their electrons. A piano string is a natural oscillator whose frequencies are determined by the intrinsic standing wave of its mechanism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 In which case you are redefining "standing wave", which makes the discussion pointless. To me, cheese is a mixture of basalt and feldspar so it is clear that the moon really is made of cheese. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Repteux Posted July 21, 2014 Author Share Posted July 21, 2014 (edited) I already said that the brain waves did not have to match the definition of standing waves to support information: it is sufficient that they never stop and that they experience feedback loops. Edited July 21, 2014 by Le Repteux Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 I already said that the brain waves did not have to match the definition of standing waves to support information: it is sufficient that they never stop and that they experience feedback loops. OK. Your claim that they were standing waves was the only thing I was correcting. (Your OP is utterly incomprehensible so I have nothing else to say.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Repteux Posted July 21, 2014 Author Share Posted July 21, 2014 Sorry Strange, this is the best I could do for the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Repteux Posted October 3, 2014 Author Share Posted October 3, 2014 (edited) Here is a message that I've put on another forum about the relation between conscience and imagination. "To me, consciousness is about perceiving a change, but since we resist automatically to a change, it is also about resisting to a change. I have an analogy to illustrate that: if you move a body, you feel its resistance, and you take conscience of it because of its resistance. What happens then is that your sensitive neurons transport the information to your brain, that also resists to the change happening to its own neurons. This is for a change from the environment, but there are also changes in our own brain, which is a job for our imagination. If the brain changes something on the informations it already contains, it automatically resists to it, it is forced to if it has to integrate it, and this is why it perceives it. We can only perceive changes, and changes sufficient to hurt if we do not take them into consideration. When we are asleep, it takes a sufficiently loud sound to awake us. When we are concentrated on a job, it takes a sufficiently important change to catch our attention. Any change that is not sufficient does not get to our conscience because we do not have to integrate it. When we resist to a change, it means that we are actually integrating it, not that we reject it. Without resistance, we could not feel anything. How is that? Do you feel a resistance now?" Do you feel it? Edited October 3, 2014 by Le Repteux Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 I see you haven't changed your views, even after your generalizations and absolute assumptions are shown to be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Repteux Posted October 3, 2014 Author Share Posted October 3, 2014 (edited) Hi Strange, The precedent argument was about brain waves, this one is about change and resisting to change. Are you going to resist to it or to avoid it? Edited October 3, 2014 by Le Repteux Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 ! Moderator Note This is off-topic for where it's been posted. I think we have enough discussion in two closed threads (linked below) to know that this idea was presented and was not discussed in a manner that complies with the rules*. This solves the problem of where to put the thread: it goes in the trash. DO NOT reintroduce the topic. You had your shot at it. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85597-new-theories-are-trash/page-15 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85809-off-topic-posts-from-new-theories-are-trash/ *and rules violations — not content — is the reason for this closure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 (edited) ! Moderator Note The "resistance to change" tangent has been split off into the trash can http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85888-resistance-to-change/ Do not reintroduce that discussion. Edit: posts restored, thread locked. Edited October 7, 2014 by swansont Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Repteux Posted October 3, 2014 Author Share Posted October 3, 2014 Wow, I just hit an invisible wall. I guess I'll take a break from the forum for a moment, its too much resistance for me. Thanks everybody! Take care! Ah, by the way Stantsont, you should trash the speculations' forum. Its too dangerous for accidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Repteux Posted October 7, 2014 Author Share Posted October 7, 2014 OK Swansont, I had time to heal a bit. This thread about mind is linked to the one on mass, which is about resistance to acceleration, thus if you deny me the right to make the analogy with resistance to change, you automatically deny me the right to talk about my ideas, and moreover, on the basis that I did not observe a rule on another topic. Its just as if a policeman would deny me the right to drive my car on any road because he gave me a ticket for speed on one of them. What other reason for acting like that than to keep me off road for good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 ! Moderator Note The speculations forum requires that it "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 posted this subject matter at some length both here and in another thread, without fulfilling this requirement. Further, we have a rule about how discussions are to be conducted, anywhere on the forum. Rule 8 "Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them." You violated this a number of times, repeating your assertion even after contrary evidence was supplied. Those discussions were shut down because they didn't conform to the rules. This isn't an issue of you getting a speeding ticket and not being allowed to drive on another road. On that particular topic you were driving recklessly and as a result your license has been suspended. You don't get to drive at all. I did make an error. I should have locked this thread instead of splitting off the discussion. Fixing that immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts