Thinking about your posts, jim, and many other posts here, it struck me how much the language and concepts dreiving from IT have effected the way we see all sorts of things in the "wider" world. Indeed, I see it in a lot of my own thinking and imagery too. We talk about "hardwiring", software, operating systems, etc, in ways which would have been incomprehensible to ourselves, say, forty years ago (apart from a tiny minority). But it's thirty years now since Bob Geldoff sang of "the silicon chip inside her head get[ting] switched to overload."
We should however be careful here. Just as an existential rational caution is called for with regard to our inherent tendency to anthropomorphise when thinking about the cosmos, so should we also be careful of computomorphising when reflecting on the way we humans work. Such thought models are just that - models. They help us understand particular processes better but are not comprehensive and can sometimes actually hinder us from seeing other aspects of the whole. Unlike many others here, I tend strongly to an ultimately physical basis for consciousness and am extremely sceptical about terms such as collective consciousness, soul, spirit, etc. in this area. That said, I am also very much aware of how little we know about the nuts and bolts of how our consciousness actually works - even down to basic divisions between feeling/emotion and reason and their continually cascading interaction, not to mention the fundamentals of how our sense of continuous "self" "exists" and functions. I think we need to work with many different models (not always completely compatable with each other) while always remembering that they are models. To move from an IT model to conclusions about consciousness existing apart from the brain (on other planes, or such ideas) seems to me to be a pretty large step. Francis On 27 Jun., 21:57, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > Tinker - the views I expressed are more thoroughly developed in my > book "Leap of Reason." (See p. 122+) It's available through Amazon. > But to answer your question about how I can think the human brain can > only remember at best a few days' experiences, consider the facts. The > brain contains about 100 billion neurons, each with maybe an average > of 10 synapses linking it to other neurons. Assume that the entire > brain is solely devoted to memory. What does it have to store? Visual > info, auditory info, smells and tastes, physical feelings, emotional > feelings, location information, taught info. etc. > Assume our field of view is maybe 3.3K pixels by 3.3K pixels (for > a total of 10m pixels per field of view) with a visual B/W scale of 10 > (let's keep it simple) and a color scale of 10 for each pixel giving a > total visual field of info that must be stored of 1B. Next assume we > can perceive 10 fields per second (again, to keep it simple). So to > remember all this visual info for a 16 hour day (or about 60K fields > per day) we need enough storage to hold 60T bits, And this is just the > visual info we need to remember for one day. > How might that info be stored? Assume that each synapse has > "elements" capable of storing 10 bits of info, and that by some > encoding or info storage capability we can reduce the 60T visual bits > by 10, that means that we need the memory capacity to store 600B bits > of info. But our entire brain only has about 1T storage "elements" So > if the entire brain was devoted to memory, which it is not, and if all > it stored was visual info (which is not the case) at best it might be > able to store maybe 1.5 days worth of scenes. That's why I said that > the human brain can only store at best a few days' memories. Of course > we remember much more than that. Thus, I suggest that our memory is > stored, not in our brain, but as part of our consciousness, or > somewhere else (another plane?) accessible by our consciousness. What > do you think? Jim > > On Jun 26, 8:19 pm, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > "It is that our physical brain does not have the > > > > capacity to store more than a few days' memories" - Jim > > > The physical brain is a complex computer that exceeds the capabilities > > of computer technology. How can you think it can only contain a few > > days of memory? > > That's a pretty weak foundation for your memory storage on another > > plane. > > Maybe you're confused with the collective intelligence which does > > store the cumulative knowledge of mankind. It is a real thing, the > > source of insight, inspiration and revelation. > > > peace & Love > > > On Jun 26, 1:16 pm, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > rigsy - thanks for responding. My notion is not that we can't remember > > > more than a few days. It is that our physical brain does not have the > > > capacity to store more than a few days' memories. So they must be > > > stored elsewhere. Where might that be? I propose that it is part of a > > > consciousness that goes beyond this physical plane. That's why I > > > mentioned the out of body stories. Jim > > > > On Jun 20, 3:55 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I dispute your notion that we cannot remember beyond a few days- I > > > > have a fierce memory- though I may have to ask myself what was purpose > > > > of my entering a room, cabinet, etc. Our dead continue to exist- they > > > > are in our bones of memory, our appearance, habits, quirks. My > > > > daughter is just beginning to find this out and I am quite silent > > > > while I watch her journey- why ruin the surprise? > > > > > On Jun 18, 3:16 pm, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > For some time, being retired, I have been thinking about such > > > > > ultimate questions as: why are we here, what is life all about, what > > > > > happens when we die, and do we continue to exist after we die. Drawing > > > > > on a lifetime of reading and experience, I think I’ve arrived at some > > > > > unusual answers. > > > > > To begin building a foundation for those answers, I first > > > > > wondered > > > > > about just who I am; what is it that is me? I don’t believe I’m the > > > > > reflection I see in the mirror. No. If I lost an arm or leg, I still > > > > > believe I would be 100% me. It seems that the real me, then, is the > > > > > consciousness that is within my body. Hmmm. How might I check this? > > > > > How about my memory. During part of my working career I was > > > > > involved > > > > > with data storage and encoding, the object being to pack as much > > > > > information into as little storage as possible. If you think about all > > > > > the things you remember – scenes, happenings, conversations, other > > > > > sounds, smells, numbers, taught information, etc. – and the capacity > > > > > of the human brain, it is clear that the human brain can remember at > > > > > most only a day or two of recent events. So where are the things I > > > > > remember stored? > > > > > I happen to have had a couple of out-of-body experiences. I > > > > > recall > > > > > being conscious of looking at my body lying on a bed, and of being > > > > > able to look around the room and out the window. Each time the > > > > > experience scared me, and I quickly returned to my body. But while > > > > > out- > > > > > of-body I now realize that I could recall everything I could think of > > > > > while in my body; the me that was in my body was still the me that was > > > > > out of my body. > > > > > Many books describe out-of-body experiences. The best, I > > > > > think, is > > > > > Thirty Years Among the Dead by Dr. Carl Wickland. In it, he discusses > > > > > numerous examples of patients who had died yet whose spirit was still > > > > > “here,” entwined with another body. In each case, the spirit of the > > > > > now dead person had what seems to be a perfectly normal memory of > > > > > their life, and exhibited the personality quirks they had while alive. > > > > > So it seems that the human memory resides elsewhere that in the human > > > > > body. > > > > > Fine, but still why am I here? Indeed, why is anybody or > > > > > anything > > > > > here? Consider what “here” is. We know that this world, and everything > > > > > else in the universe, is matter disbursed in an almost infinite amount > > > > > of space. But then we also know that E=mc². In words, this "here" can > > > > > be reduced to the simple statement that all is energy, even matter. So > > > > > “here” is a vast pool of energy, a pool that includes each of us as > > > > > well as everything else in this physical universe. Yet it seems that > > > > > our memory does not reside in this physical universe, given that it is > > > > > not the me in the mirror but is present in out-of-body experiences. > > > > > Could it be that there is a consciousness, what might be called an > > > > > infinite consciousness, that contains each of our memories as well as > > > > > everything else that has ever happened anywhere in the universe at any > > > > > time, and maybe even a lot more than that? I don’t know of anything to > > > > > disprove this possibility, so let’s assume for now that it might be > > > > > correct. > > > > > So why am I here? Well, all that is in the universe might be > > > > > here > > > > > simply because it pleases the infinite consciousness that this is so. > > > > > It is simply an exercise of an attribute of that consciousness. Fine. > > > > > But why am I here? Assume that the infinite consciousness wishes to > > > > > experience this physical universe. Of course this could be done by > > > > > endowing each thing in the universe with its own consciousness. That > > > > > consciousness would know that it was part of a much greater whole. But > > > > > it would also know that it was discrete in and of itself. Yet we don’t > > > > > know that – each of us believes that we are complete and separate from > > > > > all others; we have the freedom to be whatever we choose and do > > > > > whatever we want. It’s as if there is a veil or curtain between our > > > > > discrete consciousness and the infinite consciousness, this veil > > > > > concealing our connection to the whole. (Unless we ponder such things > > > > > as where our memories are stored.) Put differently, the only way the > > > > > infinite consciousness can experience this universe from within the > > > > > universe is to use such a veil to conceal from the individual’s > > > > > consciousness his connection to the whole. Could that be why we are > > > > > here? I think so. > > > > > So what happens at death? Drawing on this view of > > > > > consciousness, both > > > > > individual and infinite, it would seem that all that happens at death > > > > > is that the physical body ceases to function. The individual > > > > > consciousness continues. And that is just what books like Dr. > > > > > Wickland’s report. If you want to know what happens beyond death, the > > > > > Seth books by Jane Roberts gives one view, or answer, a view that > > > > > seems to build on that expressed by Dr. Wickland. > > > > > I would welcome reading your reaction to all this. Does it > > > > > make sense > > > > > to you? Is this a rational and sufficient explanation of the ultimate > > > > > questions, or of why we are here? Or not?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
