LGP Science Thread

[doublem]

Why do you keep saying things I never said?

[obhave]

Since I never know when to make a new thread, I though this link fit best here as it is Biology related:

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animal ... exual-ones" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Physical_Graffiti]

Homosexual bird marriages just as strong as heterosexual ones

I'm glad that time is being spent exploring important issues like that.

[columbia]

P_G is still pissed off about what happened, the last time they screened "The Birds" at the drive in.

[shafnutz05]

I can't imagine how many millions (nay, billions) of dollars are spent on ridiculous "scientific" studies like that.

[count2infinity]

Why do you keep saying things I never said?

lol...like i said, everyone has an excuse. it's no one's fault.

Notice the word "I" in the above quote??? I said this. It's seeming as though that there's so much "research" out there that shows it's not anyone's fault, you're not responsible for your own actions, it's just your brain doing its thing. Drives me insane with the over diagnosis of ADD as just an example. I'm sure the over diagnosis of "addiction" is going to follow suit now that it's considered a "disease".

[Physical_Graffiti]

P_G is still pissed off about what happened, the last time they screened "The Birds" at the drive in.

[columbia]

[Kraftster]

Why do you keep saying things I never said?

lol...like i said, everyone has an excuse. it's no one's fault.

Notice the word "I" in the above quote??? I said this. It's seeming as though that there's so much "research" out there that shows it's not anyone's fault, you're not responsible for your own actions, it's just your brain doing its thing. Drives me insane with the over diagnosis of ADD as just an example. I'm sure the over diagnosis of "addiction" is going to follow suit now that it's considered a "disease".

Not to get off topic or do a retread of past conversations, but Hammer was right earlier in this thread. Once you recognize the "physical" nature of the brain (be it just thoughts or addiction, ADHD, or any other "disease" you are really conceding that there is no free will at all.

[Kraftster]

Off the current topic. Watching Through the Wormhole - Does Time Exist right now. This Julian Barbour has a pretty interesting theory. Basically there is no time, there is only space -- everything is a freeze frame, and motion, change, time are all illusions created by our brain. Its interesting because it takes the opposite approach to the dilemma of time than Peter Lynds does (I've mentioned him a few times on here, some pretty cool ideas). Lynds says that there ar no instants of time. Barbour says its all instants and there is no dynamic nature to time.

Fun.

[Rylan]

Define time.

[columbia]

How would Barbour explain the perception of the passage of time?
(I'm substituting perception for acknowledgment, btw.)

[Kraftster]

How would Barbour explain the perception of the passage of time?
(I'm substituting perception for acknowledgment, btw.)

For purposes of this answer (which is my best explanation based upon my understanding) "prior" and "future" do not refer to time, but rather the order of snapshots that are the only reality (according to Barbour)).

The "now" obhave physical brain possesses everything that the one prior "now" obhave did. Allowing it to "observe" (bad word probably) change (the rest of the snapshot is different than the prior snapshot) and it translates change into motion when its actually just a different snapshot, which is unconnected to the prior snapshot apart from coming after it.

[Rylan]

How would Barbour explain the perception of the passage of time?
(I'm substituting perception for acknowledgment, btw.)

For purposes of this answer (which is my best explanation based upon my understanding) "prior" and "future" do not refer to time, but rather the order of snapshots that are the only reality (according to Barbour)).

The "now" obhave physical brain possesses everything that the one prior "now" obhave did. Allowing it to "observe" (bad word probably) change (the rest of the snapshot is different than the prior snapshot) and it translates change into motion when its actually just a different snapshot, which is unconnected to the prior snapshot apart from coming after it.

I need Kovy27's suicide emote for this, cause head just got blown.

[columbia]

So it's like a film, made up of stills?

[Kraftster]

So it's like a film, made up of stills?

That's what this guy says, only there's nothing connecting the stills. Stills stacked on top of one another.

[Kraftster]

How would Barbour explain the perception of the passage of time?
(I'm substituting perception for acknowledgment, btw.)

For purposes of this answer (which is my best explanation based upon my understanding) "prior" and "future" do not refer to time, but rather the order of snapshots that are the only reality (according to Barbour)).

The "now" obhave physical brain possesses everything that the one prior "now" obhave did. Allowing it to "observe" (bad word probably) change (the rest of the snapshot is different than the prior snapshot) and it translates change into motion when its actually just a different snapshot, which is unconnected to the prior snapshot apart from coming after it.

I need Kovy27's suicide emote for this, cause head just got blown.

It is really hard to get your head around, I still have lots of questions and don't totally understand it. Its an incredibly skeptical view for a scientist to have, seemingly changing everything about science.

[Rylan]

So it's like a film, made up of stills?

That's what this guy says, only there's nothing connecting the stills. Stills stacked on top of one another.

It kinda makes sense. I had to read a few times to grasp what you were meaning.

[Kraftster]

So it's like a film, made up of stills?

That's what this guy says, only there's nothing connecting the stills. Stills stacked on top of one another.

It kinda makes sense. I had to read a few times to grasp what you were meaning.

The thing I struggle with is how the brain "perceives" anything. I have a hard time understanding what perception would be in the scenario, since perception, as we commonly understand would be part of the dynamic physical process of chemical reactions in the brain.

I guess what I struggle to understand is how each snapshot is just a still and not some small (perhaps even infinitesimally small) segment of fluid time. How can the brain trick us if there is no fluid time within which for it to "perceive."

[columbia]

So it's like a film, made up of stills?

That's what this guy says, only there's nothing connecting the stills. Stills stacked on top of one another.

Like a slide show.

[Rylan]

So it's like a film, made up of stills?

That's what this guy says, only there's nothing connecting the stills. Stills stacked on top of one another.

It kinda makes sense. I had to read a few times to grasp what you were meaning.

The thing I struggle with is how the brain "perceives" anything. I have a hard time understanding what perception would be in the scenario, since perception, as we commonly understand would be part of the dynamic physical process of chemical reactions in the brain.

I guess what I struggle to understand is how each snapshot is just a still and not some small (perhaps even infinitesimally small) segment of fluid time. How can the brain trick us if there is no fluid time within which for it to "perceive."

Perhaps its like the "sausage finger." Hold your index fingers pointing towards each other. The brain will fill in what it thinks should be there. Perhaps between the stills the mind fills in what it thinks should happen to connect the stills?

[bhaw]

That's my thinking Rylan. The "stills" are so close together in space that the brain fills in the "time" aspect of it.

[Kraftster]

I think what you are saying makes sense, I think it is what this Barbour guy would say -- it feels fluid because that's what our brain makes us believe, though it is just an illusion.

What I don't get is how the brain can "perceive in a still" to even be able to blur it all together for us.

[Rylan]

What bhaw said. The stills can be impossible to seperate and yet still have gaps. So because they are so close the brain is capable of filling in the gaps.

[Physical_Graffiti]

What bhaw said. The stills can be impossible to seperate and yet still have gaps. So because they are so close the brain is capable of filling in the gaps.

Like film?