'The Nature of Mind' and 'Gravity'

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by hansda, Oct 5, 2013.

  1. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    We know that 'gravity' is due 'attraction' between two mass.

    We also know that 'our mind' gets attracted to certain physical things as per the 'nature of our mind'.

    So considering this common factor of 'attraction', we can say that: 'Our mind has a nature of gravity' or 'Gravity has a nature of our mind'.



    Thoughts...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,376
    Gravity is a law / formula pertaining to a force, when the preference is for what will happen and avoiding "why / how" things happen; or referring to gravity in a way that is more stable over time, not dependent upon the most popular theory of explanation of a particular era. As a law it can be construed as a kind of inherent and global regularity of the cosmos, and not something acquired accidentally and locally in the course of contingent, empirical events transpiring through the ages.

    Whereas a person wanting / craving a checkered blouse, motorcycle, a pizza, or raggae music consists of conditioned attractions that a brain / body habitually obtains over the flux of life. There is no special force of attraction mediating between the desirer and the objects of desire, other than permutations of applicable ones recognized by physical sciences. Such conditioned inclinations and passions accordingly vary from individual to individual. Though there are basic innate needs that are necessary for an organism's survival, which can be universal in the species. Tom may habitually crave steak to say alive, but his friend prefers potatoes; both particulars can be subsumed under the general concept of "food", driven to be sought by the common feeling of hunger. While it's unclear that any attempts have been made to seriously formalize some of these universal, template needs of humankind as "laws", there is an emerging "physics of society" that does treat the grand overall behaviors of people as if we were interacting atoms amenable to rules and statistical predictions:

    Philip Ball (physicsweb.org): From theories of pedestrian movement and traffic flow to voting processes, economic markets and war, researchers are striving towards a physics of society. "It may be", said US sociologist George Lundberg in 1939, "that the next great developments in the social sciences will come not from professed social scientists, but from people trained in other fields." Take a look at any issue of a physical-sciences journal in the past five years and you will see one such field staking its claim vigorously. Physics is muscling its way into social science. Not content with explaining the behaviour of atoms and electrons, semiconductors, sand and space-time, physicists are now setting out to understand the behaviour of people.

    Lundberg would have approved. He was part of a tradition that sought to establish a scientific grounding for sociology that would make it every bit as quantitative and deterministic as the natural sciences. [...] But the impulse to identify natural laws of society is, in fact, much older. Plato may have been the first to hint at it, and the Roman writer Cicero in the second century BC believed in laws that transcended the customs and particularities of individual nations and which would apply to societies everywhere at all times.
    [...]
    The basic idea is simple: we replace the atoms of conventional statistical mechanics by people. Of course, while atoms interact via well defined forces of attraction and repulsion, people are seldom so straightforward. But in some situations human interactions do not amount to very much more than this basic concept. For example, by avoiding collisions and not encroaching on one another's "personal space", we act just as though there was a repulsive force between us.

    Add to this some directional motion towards a goal, rather than the random Brownian drift of atoms, and you have a model of pedestrian behaviour like that developed in the mid-1990s by German physicist Dirk Helbing and co-workers. Helbing, who is now at the Technical University of Dresden, has shown that this model can be used to predict how people move in busy corridors and intersections, and how they create spontaneous trails over open spaces (see Helbing, Keltsch and Molnar in further reading).

    If we include a degree of neighbour-following - a cohesive, attractive force - you find the "flocking" behaviour explored by physicist Tamás Vicsek and colleagues at Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest, which mimics the motion of animal swarms. In 1999 Vicsek, Helbing and co-worker Illés Farkas demonstrated how neighbour-following can lead to hazardous herding effects when a crowd becomes seized by panic in conditions of poor visibility, such as a smoke-filled room (see Helbing, Farkas and Vicsek in further reading).

    The rules that govern the interaction between people (or "agents") can be as simple or as complex as the situation demands. Between economic traders, for example, the interactions consist of buying and selling, as well as responding to the perceived market sentiments of their neighbours. Voters, on the other hand, seek to persuade nearby agents to adopt their views - just like magnetic atoms tending to align their magnetic moments.

    These physics-inspired "interacting agent" models - which are typically studied using computer simulations - have been used to explore everything from the growth of businesses to the dynamics of boat trips in the Grand Canyon. One of the most complex examples is the virtual world of "Sugarscape" devised by Robert Axtell and Joshua Epstein of the Brookings Institution - a political-science think-tank in Washington DC. In this model, agents are free to move, breed, trade, fight and exchange cultural values according to simple rules. Their key objective is to acquire food ("sugar"), which is distributed patchily across the gridded landscape. They can obtain sugar by force if necessary, although some versions of the model permit civilized trading by introducing a second commodity, spice.

    Interacting-agent models enjoy an increasing respectability in social sciences, but their complexity can mean that the connection with real physics becomes tenuous. Even in models as complex as Sugarscape, however, some of the properties that emerge can be interpreted and rationalized by drawing on the experience that statistical physics has with simpler systems. For example, these models often show statistical behaviour such as non-Gaussian fluctuations and power-law probability distributions, which are familiar in physics. Both of these features are generally signatures of non-equilibrium systems that are governed by strong correlations between the individual components. Such correlations typically mean that the system's behaviour, while hard to predict in detail, is not simply random (that is, characterized by Gaussian fluctuations). Thus even in very complex systems there may be universal statistical features that remain aloof to the fine details.

    Despite all of this, social scientists (and others) may feel uncomfortable with the notion that you can represent a human being by a particle - however complicated its interaction laws. Does it not imply that people are mere automata that jerk like puppets in response to the push and pull of external forces? In the face of such a mechanical view of society - which was pioneered by Comte along with French mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace and others - the Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky asserted that men will strive to exert their free will, even to the extent of making themselves act irrationally or insanely.

    Yet modern physical models of social phenomena are not really imposing some deterministic tyranny on human actions. Rather, they are simply acknowledging that in reality our choices are often extremely limited. However much we treasure a belief in free will, social norms and conventions exist partly to reduce the need to make choices in the first place.

    People within a culture dress similarly, eat the same kinds of food and use the same words. We do not question whether drivers have free will simply because they predictably follow one another down the motorway at more or less the same speed. And in an election we do not exercise our free will by voting for our grandmother - we vote for one of the handful of names on the ballot sheet. Statistical physics does not prescribe which way our mental "compass needle" points. It merely asserts that the choice of orientations is limited, and that this choice is typically influenced by our neighbours.

    The idea that mass decisions may have predictable yet counterintuitive consequences was pioneered by Harvard economist Thomas Schelling in his 1978 book Micromotives and Macrobehavior. Schelling was really writing about social physics, although he did not know it. ... ​
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424

    TRUE. "Gravity" basically is an interaction between two mass/energy(physical objects).

    Isn't this an interaction between a 'mind' and a 'physical object(mass or energy)'?

    Here the 'desirer' is the mind and the 'objects of desire' is either mass or energy. Here an interaction is happening between the 'mind' and the 'mass' or between the 'mind' and the 'energy'. The moment there is an interaction, a force works between two interacting objects.


    Very correct. This means an object's interaction with two minds are different. There also can be mind to mind interaction, which are still different.

    Now, what is a 'mind'?

    A 'mind' can be considered as our 'brain'. 'Brain' consists of 'mass' and 'energy'. So, an 'object's' interaction with 'mind' is nothing but an 'interaction between two mass/energy'. This interaction is same as 'gravity' or 'quantum gravity'.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    We know that our body and mind is consisting of mass and energy. So, is the case with our Universe.

    So, all the principles of the universe should apply to our body and mind.

    Similarly, all the principles of our body and mind should apply to the universe.

    That way there may be some connections between Physics and Psychology.


    Here is a site which also tries to find some link between the mind and physics.
     
  8. someguy1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    727
    But isn't that historically contingent? That is, the collection of phenomena known to or explainable by the physical sciences changes whenever somebody discovers something new. Before Newton, gravity was one thing; after Newton, gravity was something else. And in our modern era, gravity is something else again.

    How can you be so sure that there is "no special force of attraction mediating between the desirer and the objects of desire" when all you know is this year's physics?

    Do you believe that the desire of a lover for his or her beloved can be explained by principles "recognized by the physical sciences?" Which principles are those?
     
  9. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,376
    There is a time machine or knowledge of "future physics" available today? Or (equivalence wise) is this just a suggestion that air-guitar players and guitar players not born yet, should be given equal time during auditions as currently living musicians with real instruments, for an opening in a band? IOW, help me understand why information that does not exist yet and may never exist should prevent current research departments from outputting conclusions and status reports about what is "going on" in their fields.

    How can you rule out Santa Claus having killed ancient inhabitants of Mars and destroying or obscuring the evidence afterwards? What, you don't want to waste time on each of the millions of ideation stones that get be passed by brains in the course of imaginative thought? Likewise, science apparently has its own standards for excluding most of those from serious consideration, too. But not in favor of immutable dogma that cannot be revised or overturned by simply producing either evidence for, or good reason for bothering with / pursuing, such alternatives.

    As an example, posit the possibility of "desiron" particles as carriers for a force in either the human science or the physics forum. Then later click the "Moved" link to find any responses to the thread's relocation in the "On the Fringe" section (if not "Cesspool"), to garner an "earful" from folk in here about its lack of evidence, being unnecessary, no testability presented, etc.

    My neighbor once told me that her mother, suffering from Alzheimer's, sometimes forgets the man she has been married to for over fifty years ("Who is that fellow in those pictures? Why does this strange man try to kiss me?"). A shame this yet to be discovered "desiron force" is so dependent upon brain-based memories and other processes for affecting her love / attraction behaviors. Why, one would almost conclude that this special desiron force causing an attraction between human bodies is superfluous and unneeded!

    Why would anyone, in this era of search engines and still concrete libraries and bookstores, have to "believe" [as if instances of it could not be perceived hither and thither] that the biological sciences output explanations about desire, love, etc? And "believe" that those researchers in turn have to admit [regardless of any egocentric pride in their field] that the concerned brain/body components/processes would in turn rely much upon explanations of physics as to how they could even arise and be functioning in the first place?

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031111064658.htm
     
  10. rr6 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    635
    Motion attracts the attention of animals with sensorial nervous system.

    Some believe opposite spins--- ex clock-wise and counter-clock-wise ---will attract each other, perhaps as postive and negative charge, whereas spinning phenomena with same direction of spin, repel each other. I dunno if this is true at classical level much less atomic or subatomic quantum levels.

    Motion attracts the attention of animals with nervous system.

    Perhaps any angular change of motion will attract attention.

    Motion = relationship of phenomena frequency of events, crossings, nodal vertexial events etc.....this related to that ergo otherness relationships etc...

    r6


     
  11. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,606
    Here is something that is related to your profound thought. I noticed that I was attracted to a rather slender woman and standing next to her was a very large woman, the funny thing is I was less attracted to the large woman than the smaller woman!!! What do you think abouth that Hansda. So even though, as you astutely point out, attraction in a graviational sense and attraction in a psychological are the same, they actually appear to be inverses of each other.

    So my theory is:

    M1= M2 then there is equal attraction

    M1 << M2 then M2 is attracted to M1 but M1 is repulsed by M2

    However, if M1 drops below a threshold then all other M will not be attracted to M1.

    If on the other hand M1 is above a certain threshold then there may be a certain subset of M that will be attracted to a sideshow at a fair to see M1.

    Fascinating - is this covered in your theory of everything?
     
  12. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,623
    Evidence for this surfaced circa 1950:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,376
    We should all be baffled why that was not Pia Zadora's big break.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Instead she had to wait till Butterfly, in 1981.
     
  14. rr6 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    635
    Potion for Motion = Nodal-Vertexia- Events

    Frequency of phenomena = motion-AAAA1

    Frequency of phenomena--- motion-AAAA2 ---directed at some angle from trajectory of motion-AAA1.

    Frequency of phenomena--- motion-AAAA3 ----observes trajectory of motion AAA2 and trajectory of motion-AAA1.

    Frequency of phenomena--- motion-AAAA4 ---as background if such background has any information bits to be considered, if such background information exists to be harvested.

    The potion for motion is nodal-vertexial-events i.e. an intersection for no less than three vectorial trajectories and can only exist in conjunction with 4 other nodal vertexial events, a more wholistic set of 4 nodal-vertexial events and 6 vetorial trajectories.

    In 2D space, this would be seen as a subdivided triangle--- the minimal solid ---wherein we have three obtuse triangles as within the greater/overall triangle, if that triangle approximates equiangular, and are integral part of the greater triangle that encloses/embraces and area.

    In 3D space this is a tetra(4)hedron i.e. and integrated set of 6 trajectories and 4 nodal vertexial events that define 4 surface triangles embracing/enclosing a volume.

    Attention = spirit-1 = physical/energy

    Intention = spirit-2 = metaphysical concept i.e. mind/inteligence

    Eye candy or ear candy is sensoral.

    Mind candy is mind/intelligence.

    The most complex integration of mind/inteligence with sensoral is the human-biological-female/woman with human-biolgoical-male/man being close 2nd.

    Biological = soul

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    r6

     
  15. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,921
    No, we can not. Our mind (or our physical brain) does not get physically attracted (pulled toward) as in the case of attraction between two masses.

    Therefore, this thread is nonsense.
     
  16. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    Our mind(brain) consisting of masses. So, attraction of mind can be considered as quantum interaction. The gravity can be considered as quantum gravity.

    This attraction may not be "Newtonian Gravity" but it can be "quantum gravity".
     
  17. laura89 Registered Member

    Messages:
    10
    In fact, I am a little confused.
    I haven't not yet thoroughly understanding these two phrases.
     
  18. rr6 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    635
    Consciousnes = brain---Mind/intelligence = concept

    Consciousness occurs with many animals and they have little to no access to mind/intelligence as abstract concepts.

    Brain does not neccessarily = mind/intelligence ergo abstract concepts.

    Complex woman and less complex man have most access to mind/intelligence.

    Consciousness is attracted to motion. Motion = energy/physical momentum.

    Consciousness and mind/intelligence are both attracted to specific shapes, colors, smells etc...associated with the opposite sex, if not the same sex in less common circumstances.

    r6
     
  19. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    little

    why ?

    why ?

    sure but so what ....

    why the tangent of sex ... ?
     
  20. rr6 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    635
    Brain Does Not Neccessitate Access to Metaphyiscal Mind

    I don't know the"why" for many facts of our Universe. Often times we humans just abserve the facts and speculate upon why existence is that way. Sometimes it is just that way and we go with it.

    First off you have understand numerical complexity. My experiences with you to date is you could careless as you act like a troll 95% of the time.
    X chromosome is more complex than y, numerically speaking, for starters i.e. there exists more relationships occuring with the X chromosome than the y

    There have been experiments done, that show that womens brain becomes more active in both hemi-spheres, than do men, when asked a set of questions.

    A woman has womb and man has no body ograns that are in any way comparable to a womb. Men who have sex changes have not become a woman because a woman has a womb.

    So gravity is also attractive and I believe contractive. The problem for some is that they cannot make a distintion between consciousness( sensorial/brain ) and mind/intelligence( metaphysical )

    Why not? If we not expand our viewpoint to more inclusive of Universe and all of its parts ex gravity, then our viewpoint more narrow and less inclusive of Universe and all of its parts.

    My experience with you--- on several differrent threads --- is that your a troll with much less inclusive behaviors ergo a more narrow minded person who really cares less about facts and truth, and more about false lies and distruption of rational, logical and common sense thinking.

    r6
     
  21. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    "Newtonian Gravity" is basically for massive particles, which does not include the effect of charge.

    "Quantum Gravity" includes the effect of charge also in addition to the effect of mass.
     
  22. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    You should remember the fact that "Mental Physics" and "Physical Physics" are quite different.

    In "Physical Physics" only mass is involoved. So, it can be considered as "Newtonian Gravity".

    In "Mental Physics" in addition to the mass, charges are also involved. So, it can be considered as "Quantum Gravity".Your more attraction towards the slender/smaller woman can be due to the effect of "quantum gravity" of your mind.

    I developed my "theory of everything" from mind only.
     
  23. rr6 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    635
    Above and Below the Line-of-Demarcation---#7

    Meta( beyond )physical mind/intellect > energyless, temperatureless, colorless, tasteless, massless > not affected by gravity.

    -----Line of Demarcation----above and below---------

    Physical/energy( fermions & bosons ) > mass/massless( photon ) > yet photon gravitationally affected by mass.

    Quasi-physical/gravity aka mass-attraction > (>IN<) > (contractive) > (convergent)

    < < < Past ooo)O(ooo Future < < <

    Non-existent Past, non-existent Present and non-existent Future

    Eternal NOW is the greatest of all illusions and begins with irrational #7 as the cosmically nuclear( pregnant ) one-in-the-oven of 6-around-1( nuclear ) or 7th illusionary, 2D set.

    With 3D, we have the 12-around-1( nuclear ) or 13th.
    http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s04/figs/f5511.html

    3 + 3 + 1

    6 + 6 + 1 = defined by the above 12-around1 in above link

    3 = geometric structural stability and 2D enclosure that initiates all of Universe inside the triangle and all of Universe outside the triangle.

    24, 60 degree triangles defined by 12-around-1

    14( 7 + 7 ) surface planes/openings defined by 12-around-1

    8 surface triangles( 60 degree ) + 6 squares( 90 degree ) = asymmetry of the above 14

    6 + 6 + 2( positive-negative ) 14 surface planes/openings, and numerically embraces, 6 + 6 + 1( nuclear ) = 13

    14 embraces 13, and represents a 3D, non-existent, illusionary, equilibrium place( location? ) between above and below? Eternal NOW?

    Hepta(7)gon is first polygon that invokes irrational angles.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heptagon

    Eternally existent infinite past,
    ----------------
    Eternally existent finite NOW,
    -----------------
    Eternally existent infinite Future

    r6
     

Share This Page