Fascinating!

[cladking]

Are our brains really analog...why do you think so?
They seem digital to me, ie, neurons firing or not.

I agree.

Apparently new research suggests the existence of some analog nerve fibers in the cerebellum but most of the brain and nervous system are digital.

Ancient Language was also digital and this was part of what made such a primitive science so powerful; it was easily manipulated by people. They thought in science and spoke in science. This allowed not only faster thought but also more relevant thought and the ability to see things from all dimensions.

Modern language is probably quite adequate for thinking despite its one dimensionality but it is very poor for communication. No matter what thought we try to convey everyone hears something different. We say what's on our mind and are always misunderstood but ancients invited people into their heads to see their thoughts. If they didn't understand it was readily apparent.

Modern language is very analog. But all languages are the programming by which a system operates because language is thought and thought is language. There is a nearly complete overlap in most individuals. We are operating a digital system with analog programming and it's the broccas area that is the interface. We are born without this area and with the ability to speak rudimentary Ancient Language but we must unlearn this language to acquire modern language (think babbling) and we must each grow a broccas area.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Is there any chance that any of you one-dimensional thinkers, will ever support any of your God, or Intelligent Designer claims? Can any of you present just one fact, data, objective evidence, proven miracle, or can even make a fallacy-free argument, that would support any your arguments and assertions? It is always just one belief-dripping, self-serving, fallacy-riddled, biblical quote-mining, and sermonizing obfuscation after another.

What does consciousness have to do with anything? Especially since consciousness represents less than 10% of all mental processes. Consciousness is certainly NOT essential for life(just ask a newborn if he/she is consciously aware). It is also not essential for survival. Consciousness is a combination of our state of self-awareness(our position in space and time), and our own existence(our sentiency, or subjective perspective, inner voice). Both language and consciousness are the emergent properties of a developing physical brain(cortex). When enough sensory patterns(connections) are formed in different areas of the brain, consciousness emerges. When enough language sensory patterns are formed, context to consciousness emerges. Because human interactions with humans(and other species) are so complex(emotions, language, communication skills, basic needs and wants, mating rituals, rivalry, compassion, tribalism, cooperation, altruism, etc.), consciousness is just an unavoidable consequence of our brain's ability to learn and store knowledge. When were you first aware of your own consciousness? The majority of species never reach this level of specialization, and mental development. Yet with only their instincts, problem solving abilities, positive and negative feedback loops, reflexes, and using the information stored within their unconscious and subconscious mind, they survive quite nicely. Every conscious decision you make, has already been made before you even thought of it. The only decisions you make, is not to action the decisions that have been made. This is why most of our words, behavior, and actions are done, without ever reaching our conscious mind.

Atheists don't believe that a God exist, because there is no evidence that suggests that. Therefore, Atheists are more incline to believe in a physical reality, than a non-physical reality, because the objective evidence supports the former. You want us to believe in something that exists outside of reality(whatever that means), on faith alone. Once we start to go down this slippery slope, even the most ridiculous beliefs will become just as valid as any other belief. Hence the number of religious beliefs and their Gods.

What conclusions do the Bible make? It only implies, gives directions, or tells stories. The rest is just interpretation. It is full of contradictions, and commit atrocities that would make a psychopath blush. Oh, and the fact that it was written thousands of years ago, by not the most advanced thinkers of the time.

We are only asking that you provide the same standard of evidence to supports your own truth claims, that you demand that science presents to you. The default position is not that we should maintain an open mind towards your beliefs. It is not that if science can't prove something, that you are right by default. It is not a matter of who has the largest consensus. And, it is certainly not a matter of creating a metaphysical reality and language, just to accommodate your religious claims. As one creationists told me, "Let's just put 'God did it all' in the science classrooms, and figure out the truth later". Science is our last hope for objective reasoning.

 

[cladking]

What does consciousness have to do with anything?

I suppose you don't believe in free will either. Once those molecules start bouncing around there's only one possibility for how they lay out.

Consciousness is everything! Every animal knows this in its core. Free will is the manifestation of consciousness and is an expression of what we believe. Behavior is the vector sum total of our beliefs and genes expressed through our own bodies. Life is consciousness and consciousness is life. Only we could possibly not know this.

Science is our last hope for objective reasoning.

Science has always been the only hope. But now days people can't see the nearly complete ignorance of science. We perform a few experiments to see reality and then we color in between these known points. We never seem to notice that experts never agree or that nobody has any luck predicting the future. Usually we can't even get experts to agree on the causes of what just happened or exactly what did happen.

Maybe if so many science believers didn't claim to know so much they'd get more agreement from the faithful.

 

[cladking]

This is why most of our words, behavior, and actions are done, without ever reaching our conscious mind.

Would you be so kind as to explain this.

My experience contains almost no referent.

 

[ecco]

What stars or star formations (constellations) are of Adam & Eve?

Orion and Sirius.
S3h and Sothis.

According to myth, Orion was the son of Poseidon the sea god and Euryale, daughter of King Minos of Crete. Poseidon gave Orion the power to walk on water. Homer in the Odyssey describes Orion as a giant hunter, armed with an unbreakable club of solid bronze.
​

Sothis is not even a constellation.

If you cannot provide evidence for your assertions, then we must conclude that you're just making stuff up as you go along.

Ancient Language was a world wide language natural to the human species that arose 40,000 years ago as a mutation (in S3h)....
Virtually every shred of readable papyrus was destroyed by about 1000 BC.

I've read every single word that survives from Ancient Language hundreds of times and there are no words for "belief" or "thought" and it breaks a bevy of linguistic laws.

So, you have read every single word of every shred of readable Ancient Language papyrus that was destroyed by about 1000 BC.

Is that not the same as saying you didn't read any of it because none existed in your lifetime?

I discovered this by solving the only corpus that exists from before the "tower of babel"

What "corpus"? How did you come about it?

 

[ecco]

So, it is your considered opinion that "our ancestors" never fell prey to animals of the time. That is an extraordinary claim. Now, if only you could provide some evidence for that.

Look! They didn't sidestep sabretoothed tigers by asking their gods to protect them or by consulting a mystic.

So, instead of providing evidence, you just make more assertions. I will grant you that they reduced the chances of getting eaten by observing and learning about their predators as well as their prey. But that is not what you claimed. You claimed that "our ancestors never fell prey to animals of the time" because they had a metaphysical language that used the exact same logic as mathematics.

They also didn't google "ways to repel tigers" or run down to the store to buy weapons or tiger detectors. They observed nature and formed hypotheses and theory.

See above.

This CAN'T WORK FOR US because our programming is confused and we conclude whatever preconceptions we had. They had a metaphysical language that used the exact same logic as mathematics.

Nonsense. It does work for us. It works every time we decide to cross a highway or street with or against the traffic lights. There was nothing metaphysical about.

Of course some animals always fall prey to predators but humans had complex language and science to tell each other how to avoid it.

In humans, much of the art of killing prey and avoiding predators was passed down from generation to generation by way of song and dance, just as it still is in some parts of the world.

In "lesser" animals...Chimps learn to avoid and evade predators. Ducks learn to avoid and evade predators. Caterpillars learn to avoid and evade predators.

Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. But it does not require complex language and science.

 

[cladking]

So, instead of providing evidence, you just make more assertions.

I presented ample evidence and if this is ever recognized or challenged I have a very great deal more which I can bring forward. I can elaborate on anything at all all the way back to my premises and definitions. I have physical evidence, experiment, and two sciences to support my beliefs. Egyptologists just "Look and See" and say "look they mustta used ramps" and "see how they talk about gods all the time".

The reality is thev ancients had no infrastructure for superstition and never talked about superstitious concepts. This is all in the minds of Egyptologists who never even noticed the language breaks linguistic laws proving (according to the beliefs of peers) that the language was nothing like our languages. They simply said exactly what they meant. When they said "bring me the boat that flies up and alights" what they really meant was "literally bring me (the literal speaker) the literal boat that literally flies up and literally alights". They were literally inscrutable to Egyptologists.

Nonsense. It does work for us. It works every time we decide to cross a highway or street with or against the traffic lights.

Yet there are people killed every day because they believe there is no car behind the moving blind spot caused by a truck.

We act on our beliefs and get killed by our beliefs because all superstition is destructive. To suppose it was different for ancient people is a modern superstition.

In "lesser" animals...Chimps learn to avoid and evade predators. Ducks learn to avoid and evade predators. Caterpillars learn to avoid and evade predators.

All animals are scientists and directly model reality in their brains. We model beliefs. They model knowledge and understanding.

 

[cladking]

According to myth, Orion was the son of Poseidon the sea god and Euryale, daughter of King Minos of Crete. Poseidon gave Orion the power to walk on water. Homer in the Odyssey describes Orion as a giant hunter, armed with an unbreakable club of solid bronze.
​

Sothis is not even a constellation.

So what you seem to be implying is that a myth from 2000 years after the great pyramids were built should take precedence over the words of the builders?

Have you ever considered becoming an Egyptologist?

So, you have read every single word of every shred of readable Ancient Language papyrus that was destroyed by about 1000 BC.

Try to keep up here.

There is no writing on papyrus from before the great pyramid building age other than isolated scraps of lists. (there was very recently a papyrus found that is much more complete but is mostly one and two word sentences.)

What "corpus"? How did you come about it?

You asked this before and I provided a link in post #225.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/index.htm

This is the vast bulk of all the writing that survives in Ancient Language and it is part of a corpus that is the rituals associated with the transformation of the king into a pyramid (mnemonic). It was found in 1883 chiseled into the walls of a tiny little pile of rubble that Egyptologists insist on calling a "pyramid" which confuses and obfuscates reality. There is virtually nothing else except one word sentences and titles in the tombs of the ancients. There is "no" writing in the great pyramids. There is the Palermo Stone with some useful information but it dates to the 18th century BC so is modern language. There are also the Coffin Texts which is an amalgam of modern and Ancient Language but is mostly modern interpretation of Ancient Language. A lot of writing survives from after the great pyramids all the way to the tower of babel but it is all in modern language. Obviously very few people could speak Ancient Language the last centuries before the pidgin form was adopted as the official state language in 2000 BC (babel).

Egyptology made the mistake of thinking this corpus is stinky footed nonsense because they misunderstand the ancients. They translated it in terms of the book of the dead because they underestimated the pyramid builders. They made the errors because they ASSUMED ancient people think just like we do. They did not. They were scientists not bumpkins. They saw all reality in terms of what they knew and understood and not in terms of their beliefs like Egyptologists.

Ancient Language isn't really gone because it underlies so many things today from humor, to religion, to language itself. We still use the same vocabulary but it's hard to see since it had so very few words and modern languages morph into new things on a continuing basis while AL was essentially unchanged and universal for 40,000 years.

If a pyramid builder sat down and could talk to Adam and Eve he'd hardly notice they were foreigners. He'd just take them as slow witted or dull.

 

[cladking]

You claimed that "our ancestors never fell prey to animals of the time" because they had a metaphysical language that used the exact same logic as mathematics.

No. That is what YOU said.

I said, "Of course some animals always fall prey to predators but humans had complex language and science to tell each other how to avoid it."

Our ancestors didn't become extinct because of the many trials they faced but they would have all died if they used superstition and magic to deal with reality.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The internet delivers....
Wasps are the first invertebrates seen to use a type of logic
Wolves Beat Dogs on Logic Test
https://phys.org/news/2011-06-chimps-capable-insightful-ability.html

Thanks. Really interesting stuff. Especially the wasps. That was unexpected, though, with so much diversity in that group, maybe I should not be surprised. Still it is complex behavior and determined through a very neat experimental design.

 

[Revoltingest]

Thanks. Really interesting stuff. Especially the wasps. That was unexpected, though, with so much diversity in that group, maybe I should not be surprised. Still it is complex behavior and determined through a very neat experimental design.

Basic logic shouldn't require a complex brain,
just one wired to do it.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I suppose you don't believe in free will either. Once those molecules start bouncing around there's only one possibility for how they lay out.

Consciousness is everything! Every animal knows this in its core. Free will is the manifestation of consciousness and is an expression of what we believe. Behavior is the vector sum total of our beliefs and genes expressed through our own bodies. Life is consciousness and consciousness is life. Only we could possibly not know this.



Science has always been the only hope. But now days people can't see the nearly complete ignorance of science. We perform a few experiments to see reality and then we color in between these known points. We never seem to notice that experts never agree or that nobody has any luck predicting the future. Usually we can't even get experts to agree on the causes of what just happened or exactly what did happen.

Maybe if so many science believers didn't claim to know so much they'd get more agreement from the faithful.

I don't believe in "free will", based on current research and the underlying logic. I believe in "free won't". Areas in the pre-frontal cortex of the brain also acts as a filter for levels of confidence. These areas also filter our decision-making activities, by utilizing the information stored in other parts of the brain, and in our genes. It uses this information to formulate what decisions or actions our body will take, 1-2 seconds before we decide to action it. I have no idea what the level of molecular uncertainty, has to do with the bio-electrochemical illusion of thought. Do you really think that you consciously control the functioning of your organs? Is the brain also an organ? Do all organs control us? Can you mentally shutdown the function of your lungs? Do you decide which sensory input you should action? Can you even screen out one thought that goes into your head? Do you consciously control your muscles for speech, or movement? Of course not. Most of what is the human condition are innate reflexes(genetics), acquired reflexes(learned), or both(behaviour, emotions, personal traits). Is free will also a manifestation of our subconscious, and unconscious minds as well? Of course not.

Not sure of your definition of "everything" in this context. I am also not sure of your definition of "consciousness". If you mean that consciousness is essential for life, then that is incorrect. You can see the evidence every morning you wake up. If you mean consciousness is essential for survival, then that is also incorrect. Especially, since the vast majority of species rely only on their instincts, genes, reflexes, and learned behavior for their survival. Thinking might only determine whether you become food or free. What is your evidence that every animal knows what consciousness is in their core? Even we humans don't know the phenomena of our own consciousness. Again, you must first define what you mean by "consciousness".

It only seems that scientist know so much, because many believers know so little. But the tragedy is that the same information is available to everyone. The problem is, that you have already drawn your line in the sand and refuse to step across. Since faith is based on the absence of evidence, any evidence we present to you will become irrelevant, since you don't rely on evidence(only on faith and belief). When you do the research, commit to the years of sacrifice, learn the language, adopt and practice the methodology, and perform the experiments, then you too might begin to gain a different perspective of what science really is. This also includes why disagreements in science is a good thing.

We are all simply the sum total, and physical outward manifestation, of billions of biological organisms, that are totally interdependent on each other. Our brain is certainly no exception.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Would you be so kind as to explain this.

My experience contains almost no referent.

But each species uses the exact same logic expressed in the terms necessary for its own (individual) survival. Our digital brains are programmed by an analog language so without science and understanding we can't recognize logic if it bites us on the nose.

Apparently new research suggests the existence of some analog nerve fibers in the cerebellum but most of the brain and nervous system are digital.

Ancient Language was also digital and this was part of what made such a primitive science so powerful; it was easily manipulated by people. They thought in science and spoke in science. This allowed not only faster thought but also more relevant thought and the ability to see things from all dimensions.

To many people your assertions can be described as half-truths, or pure nonsense. The brain is neither analog nor digital, but works using a signal processing paradigm(sense organs) that have some of the properties that are common to both. But unlike a digital computer, the brain does not use binary logic, binary addressable memory, or perform any binary arithmetic. Information in the brain is represented in terms of approximations and estimations, rather than exact values. The brain is also non-deterministic and cannot replay instruction sequences with any error-free precision. The brain is not a computer. It is a neural feedback and control system. It simply becomes the system it needs to be, whereas a computer must be programmed to become the system it needs to be. The brain is just a small part of larger biological system, that is hardwired by evolution. So in all these ways and more, the brain is definitely neither "digital" or "analog". However, the brain could be considered binary, if we say that instead of using 1s and 0s, or On's and Off's, that it uses neural spikes, and no neural spikes, then this would be a more honest comparison. But individual neurons are never analyzed individually, whenever investigating the activities in the brain.

You should read about the modern version of ELSIE or ELMER. These robots were the worlds first totally autonomous robots. They were built in 1949. Our brain is more like Elsie than an Intel CPU. I mean the upgraded model. The one with many, many more cells and sensors.

We are all born with an initial small collection of neurons within our temporal lobe. This allows us the ability to learn/mimic any language we are exposed to. The learning process is as analog as the sound signals eventually reaching these cells. As we grow older, it is the language we hear the most, that will be the language we will speak. Simple. We never speak a language we have never heard before. As we use more of these language cells, the less cells are left to learn another language. So, learn a new language early in life, before it becomes much harder later. The most ancient human language is "baby language". Also look up the evolution of language, and the role that cognition plays in the "Gender neutral" tongue.

My comments were about the things we do that don't reach the conscious mind(awareness state). That is, things that we do first and think about later. For example, the majority of the words we use when communicating with others, is usually unconscious repetition. Or, do you think about the meaning of every word out of your mouth? How many times, have you forgotten what you just said? Much of our behavioral response is from physical and verbal cues, that do not reach our conscious state. Most of our motor responses to stimuli are non-conscious reflexed, like shivering or being startled. Once we learn something, it is stored in our subconscious and unconscious mind. It is the new knowledge and skills that we are more conscious of. Even you can see evidence of this, in learning to drive, to walk, or play an instrument. Please learn the 3 function of the Cerebellum first, before making false claims?

 

[Polymath257]

I suppose you don't believe in free will either. Once those molecules start bouncing around there's only one possibility for how they lay out.

I'm not sure I even know what a precise definition for 'free will' would be. But, quantum mechanics does show that there is more than one possible future even with everything being those molecules.

Consciousness is everything! Every animal knows this in its core.

Really? How do you prove this? For that matter, what do you mean by 'consciousness'?

For example, are sponges conscious? How about planaria? As for as I can see, neither is what I would call 'conscious'. Yet they are alive and are even animals.

Free will is the manifestation of consciousness and is an expression of what we believe.

Since neither terms has been well defined, this is just a claim without a meaning as far as I can see.

Behavior is the vector sum total of our beliefs and genes expressed through our own bodies. Life is consciousness and consciousness is life. Only we could possibly not know this.

When I am asleep, I am not conscious, yet I am alive. When I am under general anesthesia, I am not conscious yet I am alive. Consciousness is ONE thing that the human brain can do, but it is clearly NOT required to be alive.

Science has always been the only hope. But now days people can't see the nearly complete ignorance of science. We perform a few experiments to see reality and then we color in between these known points. We never seem to notice that experts never agree or that nobody has any luck predicting the future. Usually we can't even get experts to agree on the causes of what just happened or exactly what did happen.

Maybe if so many science believers didn't claim to know so much they'd get more agreement from the faithful.

Nope, probably not. You see, even with all this disagreement on what happened, it is very clear what did NOT happen. And that eliminates possible explanations. In particular, the faith-based explanations have had a very poor track record.

 

[cladking]

Nope, probably not. You see, even with all this disagreement on what happened, it is very clear what did NOT happen. And that eliminates possible explanations. In particular, the faith-based explanations have had a very poor track record.

If you confused our science by redefining most of the terms, misinterpreting experimental results, and jumbling the quantities in every equation it would have a lousy track record too.

Indeed there would be nothing whatsoever of value in it. It would have no relationship to any reality whatsoever. It would be less than useless and more fatal than superstition.

But ancient science was expressed in a metaphysical language whose meaning was literal. Even after terms are confused and understanding is lost some "truth", some knowledge can still survive. The Bible is neither truth nor the will of God. But it is an interpretation of ancient knowledge derived from what was a real science, a science just as real as our science. "Science" only works if its metaphysics is sound. Just like math it has to maintain its logic and definitions. What is uncovered by science is determined by its metaphysics and like all all things it is dependent on the individual because only individuals "think" or can create. And here is the thing; ancient people didn't think like us and this is the reason they had a different science in the first place. From their perspective, from their modes and methods of thought some things are obvious which are nearly invisible from our's (of course it works both ways). They used a wholly different set of knowledge and thinking to see their world but it was no less "real" than our's.

Being jumbled and confused makes finding the meaning in ancient sources exceedingly difficult. We deconstruct every word in every utterance and don't even notice we're doing it. Ancient Language and knowledge were jumbled when they were written on paper but the original interpreter was aware he didn't understand the writing and tried to stay true to the actual words. Of course it was jumbled because he didn't understand the nature of the language or the meaning of a third of the words. Many words had even shifted meaning and the very nature, the definition, of "words" had changed. "Words" used to be representative and had to be named because they couldn't be defined. Meaning was fixed so defining a word made it deconstructible.

The real jumbling wasn't the confusion of the original author. The original author understood the writing and the "laws of nature" and everything was attuned with reality itself. Some jumbling was introduced by the interpreter. The real jumbling comes when we read the words and deconstruct them wrong! We parse the logic out of the words by assigning them to the wrong referents and by not understanding the nature of the original universal scientific language.

 

[cladking]

I don't believe in "free will", based on current research and the underlying logic. I believe in "free won't". Areas in the pre-frontal cortex of the brain also acts as a filter for levels of confidence. These areas also filter our decision-making activities, by utilizing the information stored in other parts of the brain, and in our genes. It uses this information to formulate what decisions or actions our body will take, 1-2 seconds before we decide to action it. I have no idea what the level of molecular uncertainty, has to do with the bio-electrochemical illusion of thought. Do you really think that you consciously control the functioning of your organs? Is the brain also an organ? Do all organs control us? Can you mentally shutdown the function of your lungs? Do you decide which sensory input you should action? Can you even screen out one thought that goes into your head? Do you consciously control your muscles for speech, or movement? Of course not. Most of what is the human condition are innate reflexes(genetics), acquired reflexes(learned), or both(behaviour, emotions, personal traits). Is free will also a manifestation of our subconscious, and unconscious minds as well? Of course not.

There's a great deal of irony here.

We can't build a thinking machine but we think we can understand our own thinking machines because researchers have run electric currents through some of its pathways. We don't even have a theoretical framework for building a thinking machine and many experts agree that if we could build a model of the brain it wouldn't work. We wouldn't know where the on switch was.

Yet we are willing to live our lives around the beliefs generated by neuroscience.

A butterfly in China can literally cause a hurricane a week later on the other side of the world but we don't have free will! Just because the butterfly doesn't know the results of its action doesn't mean there are no results or that it can't try to cause results or to determine how such results occurred.


Of course you can control your organs. Humans can learn to do almost anything. It's a matter of free will.

What we call the "mind" is the entire body and its nervous systems. It is various consciousnesses wired together but we are generally unaware of any but the one that we experience in our head and is a vector sum total of the "mind".

 

[cladking]

We are all born with an initial small collection of neurons within our temporal lobe. This allows us the ability to learn/mimic any language we are exposed to. The learning process is as analog as the sound signals eventually reaching these cells. As we grow older, it is the language we hear the most, that will be the language we will speak. Simple. We never speak a language we have never heard before. As we use more of these language cells, the less cells are left to learn another language. So, learn a new language early in life, before it becomes much harder later. The most ancient human language is "baby language". Also look up the evolution of language, and the role that cognition plays in the "Gender neutral" tongue.

My comments were about the things we do that don't reach the conscious mind(awareness state). That is, things that we do first and think about later. For example, the majority of the words we use when communicating with others, is usually unconscious repetition. Or, do you think about the meaning of every word out of your mouth? How many times, have you forgotten what you just said? Much of our behavioral response is from physical and verbal cues, that do not reach our conscious state. Most of our motor responses to stimuli are non-conscious reflexed, like shivering or being startled. Once we learn something, it is stored in our subconscious and unconscious mind. It is the new knowledge and skills that we are more conscious of. Even you can see evidence of this, in learning to drive, to walk, or play an instrument. Please learn the 3 function of the Cerebellum first, before making false claims?

Much of everything we do is habit. This certainly is true of most speaking. We don't invest much thought in everything we do. Many of my posts pretty much write themselves but might require a few moments to reword or expand on something I've written before. The brain is a busy place and we don't reinvent ourselves every time we decide which pocket in which to carry our wallets.

Humans suppress instinct and tend to act on their beliefs rather than trust instincts. Of course more basic functions are largely instinctual.

Most people think babies are idiots or barely conscious. When I was young such was the common wisdom. I believe it's much more true that babies simply have yet to learn how to process the huge amount of data that is reality. Much of it is acquired through AND WITHIN language (confused language) . Before this they are much more adept at processing emotional "input" and learning to interact with others (their parents) to get their needs met. Usually some life long personality and character traits are visible in babies.

Babies are born with natural language but it's highly rudimentary. This language is not reinforced because it has been forgotten. I believe they babble largely to try to open up a dialog but, no doubt, it's in part to exercise their voices and wiring. Babies are incapable of learning much science until they are two and this is when they begin growing billions of connections in their brains for the usage of Ancient language. Instead they must unlearn the natural language and begin growing a broccas area to create an interface between the digital speech center and the higher brain functions that begin operating on modern language. As they age most of these new neurons will fall into disuse. If they had instead learned Ancient Language they'd be thinking in three dimensions and would not have a broccas area. We are for all practical differences a different species than the ancients. Anatomically the difference is subtle but the effect is on every individual and is massive.

There is no "experiment" that allows a neouroscientist to run a current through a caveman's brain to see the effect. We can't examine the broccas area of a pyramid builder or deduce how he thought. If these were possible then we would see this. But, again, we don't even understand our own consciousness well enough to even define it so how is real science (not the Look and See crap) going to understand the consciousness of a brain turned to dust?

 

[cladking]

But unlike a digital computer, the brain does not use binary logic, binary addressable memory, or perform any binary arithmetic.

Our brains do not use binary logic because they are programmed by analog language. Natural languages, animal languages, and Ancient Language are all digital languages (I believe). Certainly my understanding of AL suggests its digital or, at the very least, compatible with digital processing.

We don't have a very good definition for consciousness because we can't get there from here. We can't see it well from the inside with a digital brain using an analog processing language. We can, however, extrapolate what is apparent and say that it is the quality that nature provides for individuals to survive. All consciousness is individual just as all ideas are individual. We can make more inferences about its nature by simply observing that ancient people didn't experience thought or even realize there was such a thing as "logic"! This implies that the sensation of "thought" is a product of the effects of analog language on a digital brain. I believe it's the comparison of digital input to our beliefs and models. When we compare what we see to our models we experience "thought" but thought is by no means consciousness, merely its experience. So until they learn language babies don't "think" but they still have a fully functioning brain (consciousness) and can use it for survival.

People have got to lose this idea of collective consciousness and that species exist. These are artefacts of language and do not reflect any reality as deduced from logic or shown by experiment. All consciousness is individual and it changes with experience and it changes as we sleep. Parts of the healthy brain are always active as other parts sleep. At death it no longer functions or will ever function again.

I understand these things aren't obvious but if you look I've said many times they aren't obvious only because of the way we think and when it comes to thinking humans are the odd man out because we use modern language which is unlike other languages.

"Logic" is what makes mathematics work when it is quantified. It is what makes animal consciousness work. It is what wired all consciousness. It is the very foundation of reality that we mistakenly believe is governed by "laws". Humans used to be logical but the language needed for it became too complex as we learned more and more.

 

[Thief]

Why does everything in space spin and rotate? Can there not be a single stationary object anywhere in space?

God pinched that primordial singularity between His fingers
and gave it a good hard snap

mmmmm…….that might seem like a bang on a large scale

but with rotation in play BEFORE the expansion...…

it spins
it rotates
it orbits
it spirals...…..

 

[cladking]

Of course you can control your organs. Humans can learn to do almost anything. It's a matter of free will.

I believe and can make the argument that the pulse of most individuals in a group of healthy young ancients when they were at rest or standing was exactly 60. I believe humans trained their hearts to beat at this rate because the "minute" had already been defined as one sixtieth of one sixth of a quarter part of the day. They could use their pulse to time things in nature and give them more ability to observe more things.

Of course this sounds like pure speculation and woo to you because you have a different perspective for seeing the evidence. From your perspective much of the evidence to support this isn't even evidence at all. You can find no logic to support it so consider it wild speculation. You believe in trial and error and take everything that exists at face value and that face value is determined by your existing beliefs.

I believe we are wrong about just about everything and that reality is far more complex than we imagine and our "understanding" of it is far more shallow and far more dependent on language than anyone can imagine. There is no such thing as a condition we call "intelligence". There is no real referent for the word as we generally define it.