Discussion in 'About the Members' started by John Connellan, Sep 11, 2004.

  1. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Fuck you.
    Not funny.

    Try my pipe experiment.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. fireguy_31 mors ante servitium Registered Senior Member

    Listen up kiddo:
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dreamwalker Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Well, at 3:27 AM I normally tend to sleep, and today was no exception.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Heh, then would someone who is enormously stupid appear very intelligent?
    Ok, the theory is not really good, so I doubt that. But as a possibility...

    I normally experineced a numbness, I did not feel anything in my fingers after they were scalded. Only after about five to ten minutes I started to feel pain. Alas, I do not know what the exoerinece would be like if you are cooked whole. I do not like the idea in any case, so no more boiled alive lobsters for

    I do not think that there is much pleasure involved, but what is the point?

    I agree with that, nonetheless, I would prefer to be insane in my own mind, not with another mind cramped into my brain. Also, the resulting multiple personality would not neccessarily be a sign of insanity, there would really be two (or more) unrelated personalities in one person. They would not be a product of only one mind.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Some inferences need to be made here, or that argument doesn't hold.

    1: If those worms were able to eat brains (" ") of other worms, they were very likley living in the same space, being exposed to the same stimuli. Meaning that one worm had about the same experience as the other, and therefore eating the brains of those alike cannot result in behaving as if one were trained while not being trained.

    2: Unless the trick is that young (=less experienced brain) worms were eating adult (=more experienced brain) worms' brains, and thereby gained a time advantage.

    Much like the way a child's brain, if trained properly, can do a lot what adult brains can do (like all those whiz kids who know whole enyclopaedias by heart). But the trouble with such knowledge is that it is rarely viable, those children cannot do the same things with the information they have stored as an adult may! Such children are in effect no different than savants -- their knowledge (" ") is there, but it is useless; they cannot teach anyone, they cannot perform economical calculations with the data they have stored in their heads, they may be able to recite poems -- but they cannot talk about them ...

    Their knowledge is there as a mere binary system of yes/no, false/true for the data in question. They cannot value and use their knoweldge (" "), so there is little or no practical use in it.

    And something similar can be observed in adults who know a lot of data, yet mostly just regurgitate it. This may be impressive sometimes, and certainly an advantage in our school system -- but apart from that, such knowledge is useless if it cannot be put into practice or into viable connections. What does it help you have memorized the whole dictionary and the whole grammar of a foreign language -- if you are unable to have a conversation in that language?!

    Methinks that the whole idea of eating other people's brains in order to gain their knowledge is just vampires revisited. It's like the magic pill that would make you fit and change your body into a gorgeous shape -- without ever running a single mile or doing one single pushup. Nice, but so weary, stale, flat and unprofitable!
  8. John Connellan Valued Senior Member

    Hmmm. I would imagine it feels very similar to how u would feel if u were being disembowelled by a lion, don't u think?!
  9. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    That's kinda the point. We too have evolved with these defense mechanisms in place to protect us against the brutality of death. Near death experience comes to mind.
  10. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Brain eating.....
    Love where I'm taking this ghastly thread.

    Good point.

    But if we are to consider the gorgeous chaos it is to simply liveon earth we can safely surmise the eating of brains among flatworms- or for that matter any coelenterate- was diverse enough for progression.
    Yet the focus is on time frames, not variance.
    Instead of a baby tapeworm squandering half its lifetime trying to 'learn' the smallest things that adults already have to survive, he eats the brain and presto. ‘course I get what you mean by the pill, but its flatworms we’re groveling about.

    Also, they're not concentrated in one place. You'll find some in fish, pork, beef, canines, felines all differentiated for their function per host- so if one from a fish and one from a pork happen to find each other in neighboring can only imagine the scrumptious dialogue.

    I bet it’d sound like a forum.

    We're talking flatworms and kiddies here, not philosophers.
    Its like wondering why something like Spookz, a proverbial parasite with intestinal worms, Down syndrome and herpes, can't do 'anything' with his 'knowledge'.

    But isn't an adult in the school system.....regurgitation?
    They would not hire him or her if he wasn't so good at regurgitating.

    Admit it lass, you'd fucking love to eat Einstein.

    Actually, it is.
    I’m a clumsy idiot when it comes to simple matters.

    Oh, suffer, man!!

    Where the fuck's your imagination? Imagine having a woman trapped inside your body. Sex with yourself would not be the horror its always been.
  11. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Hegel? NOOOOO!!!

    Ok. I'll read it for you. Back in a bit...

    Ouch. Sorry, but that hurt.

    However, there is something to be said for his idea of opposites. The main thing is that he propounds on a thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. This is important because most seem to get stuck on the thing and its opposite. Hegel is here saying that there is more than one side to the coin. Well, not really I guess. I guess he's still saying there's two sides plus the combination which is the coin. But, it's a start.

    What I find unacceptable on the page is the need for consciousness to create reality. This, to me, is done in order to claim god. If something must be there to think and man has not always been there then something must have always been there. That something must be god... That's how I see his picture being painted.

    Shock, I should think. The nerves don't have time to accept the sudden stimulous. But, what you say about frostbite is also true. I've never had frostbite but I have been damn close to it a time or two I bet and cold does burn.

    The stories of those who die (or come close to it) in blizzards is that they begin to feel warm and cozy. "Sleep sound in my comforting, warm embrace," says the deadly, cold snow.

    So, the middle class is the synthesis of the upper and lower? Two vulgar classes make an uptight class? The problem with this, of course, is the same as with Hegel's original assertion. There are far more than two and the synthesis. This is straight line thinking. Think circles or [/i]spheres[/i] or if you're feeling daring hyperspheres.


    Hmm. Well, I don't have two steel pipes to experiment with, I'm afraid. Plus, they'd need to more like tubes to be bendable, correct? Maybe copper tubing? Well, I don't have any of that either.

    But, there is an experiment I remember from Mr. Wizard. Let's see. Ok. What you need. A bowl of ice water. A bowl of warm (lukewarm) water. Now, submerge your hand in the ice water for a length of time. Then place your hand in the warm water. It should feel HOT. You can do the same thing with hot water and then place your hand in lukewarm water and it should feel COLD.

    It does, but in our brain the chemicals are used as a signal to strengthen or weaken particular axonic/dendritic bonds. The memories are not actually contained inside the chemicals... Or maybe they are? We still have a long way to go towards understanding how memory works entirely.

    It has to be more than just RAM. More than just a current being passed around a group of neurons in a particular way, because if the current were disrupted (in a coma) then memory loss would occur. And this is not always the case. The memory must have a physical component that is long-lasting and able to survive such disrupting effects of the brain's functioning.

    However, somehow the chemicals are able to arouse certain groups of brain cells to spark up certain burned-in patterns at the proper times (or improper. Same difference in the end.)

    And, don't forget glial cells.

    Not really. Although it certainly seems that in the case of Planaria and other simple life forms something of the sort must be going on in order for the memory-eating event to take place.

    In humans and other higher organisms, the strangers are groups of neurons. Groups that are used to working with each other. Many such groups that are often put to work on the same task so that you have parallel processing and redundant arrays. It is through this redundancy that a common theme is fixed from a possibly chaotic pattern.

    The various areas of the brain are also more like acquaintances than strangers. They have their interconnections that act as party lines. Sometimes direct links but sometimes a general "calling all cars." Passing patterns down the line and see which dog barks.

    What is fascinating to me in brain structure is how organized it is. How, for the most part, our brains are so similar. Left brain, right brain, Broca's area, Wernicke's area, angular gyrus, etc... Some of the more physical connections would be from fetal development, but one would think that there would be more variation between humans as to exactly what goes where. And, there is some, but I would expectd more.

    Somehow, everything works best the way it is and thus as the brain evolves its connections during development, a common model is followed each and every time (for the most part.)

    That would be one way of doing it. Inserting the DNA right into the body. However, I was thinking more along the lines of direct digestion similar to the example of the Planaria. I believe that I remember the Naked Neuron mentioning DNA as well as neurons in that section is what caused me to bring it up.

    The memories that one could receive from DNA would have to be genetic memory (duh) which would mean that it would be a sort of instinctual memory from one's forebears. Not really memory, but more of a propensity to react and/or respond in a certain manner to certain stimuli.

    After the DNA has had time to being reconfiguring the proper cells anyway.

    Quitter. You don't like lobster anyway, right? It's easy to quit something you don't like anyway. It's like saying, "I'm going to quit drinking turpentine."

    I seriously doubt that the experiment would be compromised in such a way. I have heard of this phenomena before. It is a valid result.

    The difference between knowledge and wisdom. Useless facts and practical application.

    But, this might be something that will become more important in the near future. Neural interfaces are not total fantasy nowadays. We approach the days of unearned knowledge.

    Oh yeah. Beyond the experiment and back to the primitive lifeforms. Those organisms would be close to each other, but as you and Rosa both have said it would speed up the teaching process. Eat the old to teach the young.

    But, one should consider that it is more likely that the old (prime of life) would eat the young and old (elderly). Don't you think? So, the middle-aged would be eating the ignorance of the young. What type of effect might that have? I wonder if it would make them dumber?

    I bet you're right.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And you're also right that not all the worms would have the same experiences despite their seeming closeness in physical space.

    Good point. The old trade off issue.

    I, for instance, am the kind of person who would sink his hands into boiling water... Along with other deficiencies to make up for my various gifts.

    Or the autistic who can memorize the encyclopedia and come up with 8 digit primes in their head but can't wipe their own ass.
  12. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Only important when speaking of history- which is mostly what the man used it for and I hope you realize you've just skimmed through a man who proclaimed Christianity as the best of the world's religions, if I'm not mistaken.
    Might be why you find his talk of 'consciousness' distasteful.

    But if you find it so important then tell me- what's the opposite of rice?

    So true and damn me.
    Copper pipes would be better.


    I don't think you see what I'm getting at.
    Those neurons cannot communicate without chemicals- therefore, you can sit there with a billion neurons neatly tangled up- but no chemicals, no thinking, no power.

    Had to dig it, took a while but found it.
    Something I wrote concerning this.
    Will start thread and link.
  13. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

  14. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Skim? SKIM???!!!

    As to his view on christianity. I know. I've attempted to read Hegel before and his christian nature repelled me. Christianity seems to lurk behind his every word. Disgusting.

    Might be another reason that he went for a 'triad'. Father, son, holy ghost. (Although I'm unsure as to whether he was catholic or protestant.)

    You misunderstand. I refer to more intangible things. Concepts and, as you say, history. Not physical things. I meant to say that but it evidently got lost somewhere down the line.

    However, if you want to be strictly literal about, the opposite of rice is anti-rice. And the synthesis of the two is pure energy.

    And, as to important, I mean that I find it significant that he speaks of more than just pairs. But, as I also said, it's not so much three perspectives as two extremes and the middle. So, I renege on my statement of importance. He's thinking linearly. Therefore, screw him.
  15. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    If we are talking about primeaval worms, then I suppose they had no fish, pork, beef, canines, felines to parasitise in/on ...
    If those worms were parasitic, they were parasitising plants, lower organisms, or temporarily eacother. The next problem is that parasites are usually specialized to one host, and many cannot live without it in their adult form. So the chances that they would "meet for a cannibal dinner" are slim.

    Eh. It's fascinating, the teachers in lower grades, teaching younger children must have far more teaching abilities than those for older children. You can't teach a 6-year-old anything if you just regurgitate! Yet those teachers are usually looked down on. It's so unfair.



    Unearned knowledge. And what is unearned knowledge good for? It is there for unearned knowledge's sake, and that's all.

    That's exactly what Hegel is *not* doing: he does not think linearily. It is not "two extremes and the middle".

    For example, if a socialist and a conservatist debate a certain social problem in order to find a solution, they quickly discover tensions between their positions. (Thesis and antithesis.) But this does not mean that one of them is completely right, and the other one is completely wrong. It is imaginable that each of them is partly right, and also partly wrong. As the debate continues, they simultaneously critically discover, slowly, how to choose the best points in their idividual arguments. Of course, once in the middle of such debate, it is often hard to say which decision or argument is the wisest. What is right and what is wrong, only time can tell. The idea is that "only what is reasonable is able to remain", or "what is right, persists longer".
    The synthesis is often the insight "after the battle" -- it is the proverbial "it is easy to play the general once the battle is over". In other words, the synthesis is not something one could surely know in advance.

    I can see that you have a distaste for Hegel because of the Christianity you perceive in his work. But note that you are commiting the Achilles Heel fallacy/a hasty generalization if you discard Hegel for such reasons. Just because one thing in his thinking is not to your liking, this does not make a rational reason for you to discard his work.

Share This Page