1

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Does consciousness exist after death?

« on: 06/07/2016 13:36:24 »

I regret that I expressed the types of memory in terms so vague. As memory in an absolute sense I mean declarative memory. As other coherent memories I mean procedural and short-term memories.

I hope that this will help making it less nonsensical.

OK thanks, that clarifies your meaning. It still doesn't make sense to me though; clearly, declarative memories can't form until the child has developed a coherent perceptual model of the world with which they can be associated, and procedural memories can't form until coherent proprioceptive feedback and control is established. To say that, "It is widely known that at some time during growth of the baby, all memories disappear." seems unrelated and nonsensical - a foetus has no memories to begin with, and a developing child will acquire memories as and when its faculties are sufficiently developed to support them. It's true that childhood development after birth is accompanied by large-scale synaptic pruning, which continues into puberty - one could say that the brain's functional architecture is as much 'carved' out of excess connectivity as it is established with new connectivity, just as its functioning involves the suppression of neural circuits as much as it involves excitation...

I'm happy that things are more clear now.

I'll study the subject better so that I may offer a more consistent opinion.

I'm not so sure fetuses don't have memories. They must have some form of memory, not declarative for sure, as it is demonstrated that they learn their mother's voice in utero and can recognize it among many voices after birth.

I'll try to define at what time time former memories are removed. My oldest memory I can date is from the time I was 2Y10M, but I have some more memories which I believe they are a few months earlier but can't date them for sure. Perhaps some day I'll be able to date them as they happened at a time I lived with my grandmother and the clues to date them must be in the letters between my mother and her, which are kept inaccessible by my mother.

For the subject in topic, my opinion is that consciousness survival after death is a philosophical matter and thus can never be definitively answered, as there is no empirical way to gather any evidence on it. The only thing that can be proved is the OBE, which didn't happen so far, altough it was tried by the AWARE study, and is still running to the best of my knowledge. Further, consciousness has never been defined scientifically and not even an algorithm of it has ever been created so that there's evidence consciousness depends on nothing else but matter, that is atoms. How did such things escape so many intelligent people for such a long time is a mystery, I think, more at a time people could trace the universe back to the big bang. 

2

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Does consciousness exist after death?

« on: 06/07/2016 00:23:23 »

It may be widely believed, but there's no evidence for it. There's some evidence that brain development is affected by experiences in the womb; so, for example, exposure to music or rhythm may enhance development of those areas of the brain. Calling potentiated development of that kind memories is a bit of a stretch. But areas used in memory, such as the hippocampus, are underdeveloped at that point, and it takes some while after birth for perceptions to become organised enough to allow coherent memory storage & retrieval. This doesn't stop people reporting having such memories, but as we now know, autobiographical memories can readily be constructed from second hand information, or imagined events.

This is a "belief", as you say, shared by most, if not all, neuroscientists. That doesn't mean that the brain is functionless until that time. I'm not telling about coherent memories, but about memories in an absolute sense.

What do you mean by "memories in an absolute sense" that are not "coherent"?

Perhaps you should read Antonio Damasio

As it happens (checks bookshelf), I have read Damasio, and Stanislas Dehaene, Stephen Rose, Barry Gordon, and Daniel Schacter, on memory. Perhaps it is the somewhat opaque and fragmentary nature of your posts that is causing some misunderstanding, but that one looked nonsensical to me...

I am impressed by your bookshelf and appreciate that you have read Antonio Damasio. I'm sorry my posts are opaque and fragmentary and that this one looked nonsensical to you.

I regret that I expressed the types of memory in terms so vague. As memory in an absolute sense I mean declarative memory. As other coherent memories I mean procedural and short-term memories.

I hope that this will help making it less nonsensical.

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How did the moon get it's markings?

« on: 29/06/2016 17:26:24 »

Very good question.

4

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Does consciousness exist after death?

« on: 28/06/2016 23:51:33 »

First of all, Every bit of evidence there is suggests that consciousness could not exist without the brain.  On the other hand, there is ZERO evidence that it could.

There's absolutely no evidence that conscience couldn't exist without a brain, unless perhaps theoretically, which here is a very weak evidence at most. Empirically, to demonstrate it, you had to know what's consciousness in the first instance and then know how to detect and record it's existence. Thus, you could prove that there's no consciousness  remaining after removing or destroying a brain or that part or all of consciousness remained after that. There's no such experiment in the whole history of humanity (at least recorded).

There's only evidence that by losing parts of the brain by disease or accident you lose mental functions, and this is might be as strong a proof that consciousness is a physical substance as observing that by cutting a nerve you lose muscular action or sensitivity.

As I told before, I'm preparing a mental experiment, something like the Chinese box by Searle, to demonstrate it.

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Did Time Exist Before The Universe was created?

« on: 28/06/2016 23:38:14 »

Indeed, time itself began with the big bang singularity.

There's no time without space and no space without time.

The big bang wasn't just the origin of space, but also the origin of time.

As well as there's no space to continue back through the big bang, there's neither time.

Firstly you have answered the poster with an answer stated as if 100% fact.   You should note the Big Bang theory is a theory and not absolute proof.

killtec -  The theory states that before the big bang nothing existed, not even time itself or space. Obviously there is not 100% proof of this , but this is the most accepted model although I personally would contest it and do not ''buy'' into the logic in any sense.

In my opinion and I am not a scientist, time does not exist and never did , so in answer to your question did time exist before the big bang ?  My answer is no, but also I do not think it exists after the ''big bang '' either. Neither do I personally believe that there was no space before the ''big bang'' on the premise that for any event to happen including a ''big bang'', it would need an existing space to happen in.

Indeed it's not 100% guaranteed truth, but the question presupposes the big bang theory and is not questioning it.

All physicists admit that time exists, it's not an illusion, but a physical dimension as real as space.

Perhaps you'd like to read this paper about time as a fundamental and irreversible entity.

The Universe as a Process of Unique Events by Marina Cortês and Lee Smolin.

http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.084007

6

Physiology & Medicine / Re: What are the scientific and engineering implications of BREXIT?

« on: 27/06/2016 22:52:29 »

A small newspaper interviewed more than 200 people who signed the petition and disclosed that 34% had voted for BREXIT.

Most of these are signing the petition (not from Vatican City) because they don't accept such a tiny margin for winning and want a better marginal victory in a second referendum.

Merkel said that if the UK approves a second, they're playing bungee jumping.

What's most sordid is that the second referendum will take place with the UK outside the EU...

Perhaps this will reverse results.

7

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Does consciousness exist after death?

« on: 27/06/2016 22:23:55 »

You're right, Alan, but I think that by answering his off-topic post perhaps you're fueling him and this becomes a never ending story about everything except consciousness and death as it's supposed to be.

8

Physiology & Medicine / Re: What are the scientific and engineering implications of BREXIT?

« on: 27/06/2016 22:11:48 »

3.061.793 signatures as I write.

Whoops: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3662545/How-hackers-hijacked-petition-demanding-second-EU-referendum-mocked-British-democracy-signing-42-000-signatories-Vatican-City-population-840.html

I'm not sure about the weight of those signatures.

Further, the government has means to certify signatures.

By the way, it's 3.879.368 signatures as I write.

9

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Does consciousness exist after death?

« on: 27/06/2016 22:06:20 »

This topic is about consciousness and death, not about evolution. I hope you both understand.

10

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Does consciousness exist after death?

« on: 27/06/2016 22:03:56 »

Mr. Alan, I mean I wouldn't like to watch again a fight between you and IAMREALITY on subjects out of topic. That's all.

11

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Why do we have to sleep?

« on: 27/06/2016 21:59:55 »

Mr Alan, perhaps you'd like to read this article from Scientific American.

Barin Drain by Maiken Nedergaard and Steven A. Goldman.

An internal plumbing system rids the brain of toxic wastes. Sleep is when this cleanup ritual occurs.

Link:

https://issuu.com/gbqblabma/docs/21sdfsdcsdc

Pages 41-45.

I'm not sure how legal is accessing this source.

Perhaps you can read it from the March 2016 magazine (Pages 38-41 if it's the UK-European edition).

12

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Does consciousness exist after death?

« on: 27/06/2016 21:38:15 »

Will you please stop here and limit exchange of ideas to the theme of the topic.

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why the arrow of time?

« on: 27/06/2016 06:54:31 »

I think your reply might be here:

Cortês M, Smolin L. The Universe as a Process of Unique Events. Physical Review D 90:084007(2014).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.084007

14

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Does consciousness exist after death?

« on: 27/06/2016 06:46:58 »

Mr. Alan, can you please modify your last post so that your text is converted from quotation to plain text, as it's hard to read in that format. Thanks.

15

Physiology & Medicine / Re: What are the scientific and engineering implications of BREXIT?

« on: 26/06/2016 23:20:00 »

In Polish?

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Did Time Exist Before The Universe was created?

« on: 26/06/2016 22:32:10 »

Indeed, time itself began with the big bang singularity.

There's no time without space and no space without time.

The big bang wasn't just the origin of space, but also the origin of time.

As well as there's no space to continue back through the big bang, there's neither time.

Augustine, in the XV century, when answering what God was doing before creating the universe, said wisely that "the world was made with time and not in time". Augustine's God transcended time and was located outside it, thus being responsible for creating time, as well as space and matter.

There's hardly any scientific theory that hasn't been considered before in the rich history of philosophy.

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: If the Universe is tending towards disorder, how was it ordered to start with?

« on: 26/06/2016 15:14:40 »

Just googled it
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/136-physics/general-physics/thermodynamics/816-does-evolution-contradict-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-intermediate

If you want to go a bit deeper

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

I'm afraid the second link, and perhaps the first one, too, is inappropriate in that it assumes the reader is a creationist.

Not that I'm one, but because I prefer to use information not flawed by an argumentation based on a false dilemma, first of all, and last but not least because I discard people who teach me how to think unless I'm stupid in their [superior] opinion.

I prefer pure scientific information, based on a categorical imperative and not on hypothetical ones as Kant would put it. Not information constructed so as to conform religious, evolutionist, creationist or whatever tenets outside their areas. Every jack to his trade.

The second question confronts the empirical existence of life, however simple or complex it may be, with the second law of thermodynamics. I wouldn't think that if Darwin was alive he would be the best authority to answer it.

18

Physiology & Medicine / Re: What are the scientific and engineering implications of BREXIT?

« on: 26/06/2016 12:28:40 »

To ALANCALVERD:

Perhaps Hitler was right.

19

Physiology & Medicine / Re: What are the scientific and engineering implications of BREXIT?

« on: 26/06/2016 11:11:52 »

A Petition demanding a second referendum on the grounds of too little a margin is running now and collected 1.440.614 signatures in a single day.

Maybe this is just the first referendum in a row, until there are no grounds for a massive petition any more.

I think the UK is playing bungee jumping.

3.061.793 signatures as I write.

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: If the Universe is tending towards disorder, how was it ordered to start with?

« on: 26/06/2016 10:42:21 »

2) About the second question, the photosynthesis reaction can be seen as the bridge from inorganic to organic world. It absorbs energy from sunlight, so it is endothermic.  If the entropy of the reaction products (C6H12O6 + 6O2) were lower than that of the input molecules (6CO2 + 6H2O) the process would not be spontaneous as it is.  So, while the living cell seems more organized than its inorganic origin, its entropy is really bigger.

Entropy of a system can be reduced by adding energy from outside of the system. Hence life is not an exception to the law.

Both your answers seem interesting and I'd ask if you can offer a bibliographical source, but please nothing for graduates in astrophysics, something at the level of a Scientific American article, or Science at most.

Thanks a lot in advance.