On Aug 23, 7:44 pm, Colin Geoffrey Hales <cgha...@unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> [Col] Nope. They won't/don't. It may (not shown conclusively yet) cause > cellular malfunction in humans (like glioma). In inorganic replication, they > will not be subject to biological malfunction because all the biological > overheads are gone. They will be at least as EM-field-interference-resistant > as the human brain. Probably much more so. However all such replication can > get muddled when you blow the living s**t out of it with a TMS wand or an TES > system! I am going to be subjected to this in mid-sept! Disruptive externally > applied fields have to include certain dynamics, otherwise they won't have > any functional impact. EMP and tasers will also muddle it up. > > [Brent] Of course at the atomic level the EM fields of outer electron shells > define the chemistry - but then it's simpler to describe the brain functions > in terms of the chemistry. > > [Col] Shell operations define chemistry...right but not relevant....and > simpler? No it isn't! That's several orders of magnitude too fine scale and > all the biological baggage is completely unnecessary. I did my PhD thesis on > this. Action potentials (AP) create a large EM field system based on the > activity of ions. The AP/EM mutually resonating and adaptive dynamics are the > real engine, not specific chemistry. You can do this organically (us) or > inorganically (AGI). Use electrons instead of ions, use inorganic > capacitance instead of cell processes. Introduce the same nonlinearities and > 'voila', brain tissue replication. If you are using electrons instead of ions, you are changing the physical scale of it though aren't you? Your electrons are a lot closer together. Maybe that doesn't matter, but maybe it's the ions themselves and not their electrons that are the microsentient agents. If we believe that the AP/EM dynamics are a thing unto themselves, independent of matter, then I would think that we would see those dynamics in the brain with the naked eye. I would see your memories in full sensory detail by looking at your brain. Could we compare the AP/EM dynamics to the broadcast signal in a cable, or to the dynamics of a flyback transformer in a CRT, or to the dynamics of the screen itself? Because I could replicate the signal in the cable or topololgy of the transformer, but if I don't have a color TV screen, I'm not going to see the TV show in color. It seems to me that the AP/EM dynamics would be the same, but the result would depend upon the capability of the whatever renders and interprets the EM. It makes more sense to me that EM does not exist independently, but is, in fact a form of awareness already. We feel EM on our skin as heat, and through our eyes as color. The EM is the same. The form that the EM takes is dependent upon the interpreter. That's why energy is so unlike a substance - because it is not only not a substance, it is the polar opposite of substance. It is that which experiences sense, and sensing is what is going on when we think we see EM 'fields'. I think there are no actual fields, only sensitivity ranges. Sensitivity ranges which belong to the thing doing the sensing, and not just a generic senseness that can be universally exported (make a monochrome monitor into a color TV). I know it sounds crazy, but I really do think that it makes more sense. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
