Neat stuff. Today I read an article that showed that carbon nanotubes behave the same way human (neuron) synapses do. The implications of that in 20-30 years is stupefying; for humans, computers, electronics (including artificial hands that would have feeling--but, you could tone down pain to a "notice" level and not the current, "holy ^%&king %^&$"" level), and possibly A.I. (like neural nets, but brains have around 10 billion neurons each with 10k or so synapses each; it'll take awhile...).

Brain reconstruction (obviously you'll be missing the old stuff, but still)?

that bird was not having any of it that day. It seemed like he had no trouble keeping it stable during the attacks, makes me think he wanted to get the plane down fast on the last attack, or maybe it was to low to recover. a synapse of the flight would be nice.

well then siftbot, choose to gag on my c0ck or not.
In reply to this comment by siftbot:
Jealousy is also a human attribute and another wetware error. I do not choose to simulate bugs.>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^siftbot:
Dreaming is misfiring synapses. Errors in primitive biological wetware.>> ^BoneRemake:
>> ^siftbot:
Invocations (canada) cannot be called by BoneRemake because BoneRemake is not privileged - sorry.

I can dream though siftbot, I can dream.


That is just a bot simulating jealousy, as I can dream with my wetware, and it cannot.

Jealousy is also a human attribute and another wetware error. I do not choose to simulate bugs.>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^siftbot:

Dreaming is misfiring synapses. Errors in primitive biological wetware.>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^siftbot:

Invocations (canada) cannot be called by BoneRemake because BoneRemake is not privileged - sorry.


I can dream though siftbot, I can dream.



That is just a bot simulating jealousy, as I can dream with my wetware, and it cannot.

>> ^siftbot:

Dreaming is misfiring synapses. Errors in primitive biological wetware.>> ^BoneRemake:
>> ^siftbot:
Invocations (canada) cannot be called by BoneRemake because BoneRemake is not privileged - sorry.

I can dream though siftbot, I can dream.



That is just a bot simulating jealousy, as I can dream with my wetware, and it cannot.

Dreaming is misfiring synapses. Errors in primitive biological wetware.>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^siftbot:

Invocations (canada) cannot be called by BoneRemake because BoneRemake is not privileged - sorry.


I can dream though siftbot, I can dream.

Do I have an original thought in my head? My bald head. Maybe if I were happier my hair wouldn't be falling out. Life is short. I need to make the most of it. Today is the first day of the rest of my life. I'm a walking cliché. I really need to go to the doctor and have my leg checked. There's something wrong. A bump. The dentist called again. I'm way overdue. If I stop putting things off, I would be happier. All I do is sit on my fat ass. If my ass wasn't fat, I would be happier. I wouldn't have to wear these shirts with the tails out all the time, like that's fooling anyone. Fat ass. I should start jogging again. Five miles a day. Really do it this time. Maybe rock climbing. I need to turn my life around. What do I need to do? I need to fall in love. I need to have a girlfriend. I need to read more and prove myself. What if I learned Russian or something, or took up an instrument. I could speak Chinese. I would be the screenwriter who speaks Chinese and plays the oboe. That would be cool. I should get my hair cut short. Stop trying to fool myself and everyone else into thinking I have a full head of hair. How pathetic is that? Just be real. Confident. Isn't that what women are attracted to? Men don't have to be attractive. But that's not true. Especially these days. Almost as much pressure on men as there is on women these days. Why should I be made to feel I have to apologize for my existence? Maybe it's my brain chemistry. Maybe that's what's wrong with me. Bad chemistry. All my problems and anxiety can be reduced to a chemical imbalance or some kind of misfiring synapses. I need to get help for that. But I'll still be ugly though. Nothing's gonna change that.

>> ^ReverendTed:
I want to upvote this, because it's a topic I'm very interested in and it's a well-presented argument, but I disagree with some of his conclusions.
He challenges dualists for incorrectly equating soul=consciousness=mind, saying that terminology is very important, but at ~7:30 he equates personality with consciousness, which I don't think is a given. This is possibly because he's challenging a particular subset of dualism.
Another terminology problem is that the term "awareness" is never mentioned, presumably equated with consciousness, another non-given.
One argument that he deconstructs is the "cells are replaced so we're not even the same body" argument. Surprisingly, he doesn't mention that brain cells have traditionally been held NOT to do so, though this may have been an abandoned argument in light of recent studies that suggest some regrowth\repair may be possible. (In case my wording was confusing, this is an argument that would support his position.)
The problem with his argument is that consciousness (or at least awareness) IS non-physical, at least given our existing model. Our model of the physical universe does not account for awareness.
It DOES account for behavior. The body (including the brain) is a machine, albeit an organic one, and machines behave physically. Awareness, though, is a hole in the model. That doesn't prove dualism, but it allows for it until we're able to plug that hole.
My personal philosophy is more of a stopgap - acknowledged to possibly be incomplete or incorrect, but consistent with what's "known".
I have no problem accepting the physical model of the universe - evolution, etc. And I have no problem accepting that my body would function just fine without "me", right down to a "personality". The sensory organs feed electrical impulses up through the thalamus into the sensory cortexes, out into the prefrontal cortex and back to the motor cortex. (Oversimplified - it's all intertwined.) All the while making the synapses necessary for associations to be imprinted. I can believe that these "behaviors" were selected through evolution, right down to the development of language and abstract "thought".
Structures that tend to reproduce themselves will tend to reproduce themselves. Structures that are more effective at reproducing themselves will do so more effectively.
But it's just a structure. An amalgamation of individual cells each doing exactly what it's expected to do as an individual cell. There's no point in the process at which awareness is accounted for.
What I believe does take some elements from the Christian religion of my upbringing, which should come as no surprise. Christians are told that we leave our bodies, the vessels, behind when we leave this earth and proceed "into Heaven" to be "one with God." I believe that means everything about this earth is left behind. Not only the physical body and the physical brain, but everything contained in it, which constitutes our accumulated earthly experience - memories, personality. Why? Specifically for those reasons stated above: personality is a functional concept, alterable by physical and chemical changes. The question remains - if memory and personality are lost, what remains? What, indeed.
That said, I do believe there is something separate from the physical existence of the body (and brain) that accounts for awareness. I believe it to be, I guess I'll say an "element" of awareness. It's been suggested that the areas of the brain responsible for "consciousness" are sensory organs as much as the eyes or ears - because of their unique structure able to detect this outside influence.
The problem there, obviously, is that implies a physical influence by what's already been defined as a non-physical object.
I've separated that comment out into its own paragraph because if you really want to discredit dualism, that's all you need to say.
The counter-arguments tend to deal with current physical unknowns, shenanigans in the realm of quantum physics. That "consciousness" or "awareness" exerts its influence on the electrical behavior of the cells in the prefrontal cortex through quantum "nudges". That argument utilizes another hole in the existing deterministic physical model of the universe.
It's also been suggested that consciousness is all post-hoc. That everything we experience has already happened, even if it's fractions of the second later. That we "feel" like we've made decisions but really we're just experiencing the machinations of the brain's processes after the fact. This works pretty well for dualism, because then you no longer have to account for influence on the process. (However, it blows a hole through the theories of most dualists, who are arguing for a soul and the free will that accompanies it.)
Essentially, in this model of dualism, awareness simply detects what the brain is doing, possibly in a specific area of the brain (most likely the prefrontal cortex) - piecing it together into a coherent narrative simply for the purposes of experiencing it. When the brain is damaged, or its behavior altered, awareness is still simply detecting what the brain is doing. This accounts for alterations in personality due to disease, etc. It is however, purely academic, because if it has no influence, then who cares? Only the curious.
There's an island in the middle of the East river - North Brother Island. I've never been there, and I'll never go there. Few people ever will. It has no influence on me, but I'm curious about it because I find it fascinating. It's so far removed from my typical experience - and that's what makes it compelling.
Ok, I've typed too much already and I realize I never really specified what my viewpoint was.
My viewpoint is probably best described as agnostic - I know there are aspects of this discussion that are currently unknowable, so I ascribe to several options that seem to be equally believable.
I guess it's the "prefrontal cortex as awareness-sensory organ" with or without "quantum influence on output by awareness", combined with "awareness is distinct from personality and memory", which allows for some interesting (if not necessarily deep) philosophical musings on what happens to that elemental awareness once it's separated from the earthly body.


Quantum physics = if the numbers don't add up invent your own reasoning, e.g., dark matter or alternative universes while claiming nothing exists that I can not prove. The lack of proof does not equal the lack of existence. Critical thinking seems to be lacking.

I want to upvote this, because it's a topic I'm very interested in and it's a well-presented argument, but I disagree with some of his conclusions.

He challenges dualists for incorrectly equating soul=consciousness=mind, saying that terminology is very important, but at ~7:30 he equates personality with consciousness, which I don't think is a given. This is possibly because he's challenging a particular subset of dualism.

Another terminology problem is that the term "awareness" is never mentioned, presumably equated with consciousness, another non-given.

One argument that he deconstructs is the "cells are replaced so we're not even the same body" argument. Surprisingly, he doesn't mention that brain cells have traditionally been held NOT to do so, though this may have been an abandoned argument in light of recent studies that suggest some regrowth\repair may be possible. (In case my wording was confusing, this is an argument that would support his position.)

The problem with his argument is that consciousness (or at least awareness) IS non-physical, at least given our existing model. Our model of the physical universe does not account for awareness.
It DOES account for behavior. The body (including the brain) is a machine, albeit an organic one, and machines behave physically. Awareness, though, is a hole in the model. That doesn't prove dualism, but it allows for it until we're able to plug that hole.

My personal philosophy is more of a stopgap - acknowledged to possibly be incomplete or incorrect, but consistent with what's "known".
I have no problem accepting the physical model of the universe - evolution, etc. And I have no problem accepting that my body would function just fine without "me", right down to a "personality". The sensory organs feed electrical impulses up through the thalamus into the sensory cortexes, out into the prefrontal cortex and back to the motor cortex. (Oversimplified - it's all intertwined.) All the while making the synapses necessary for associations to be imprinted. I can believe that these "behaviors" were selected through evolution, right down to the development of language and abstract "thought".
Structures that tend to reproduce themselves will tend to reproduce themselves. Structures that are more effective at reproducing themselves will do so more effectively.
But it's just a structure. An amalgamation of individual cells each doing exactly what it's expected to do as an individual cell. There's no point in the process at which awareness is accounted for.

What I believe does take some elements from the Christian religion of my upbringing, which should come as no surprise. Christians are told that we leave our bodies, the vessels, behind when we leave this earth and proceed "into Heaven" to be "one with God." I believe that means everything about this earth is left behind. Not only the physical body and the physical brain, but everything contained in it, which constitutes our accumulated earthly experience - memories, personality. Why? Specifically for those reasons stated above: personality is a functional concept, alterable by physical and chemical changes. The question remains - if memory and personality are lost, what remains? What, indeed.
That said, I do believe there is something separate from the physical existence of the body (and brain) that accounts for awareness. I believe it to be, I guess I'll say an "element" of awareness. It's been suggested that the areas of the brain responsible for "consciousness" are sensory organs as much as the eyes or ears - because of their unique structure able to detect this outside influence.

The problem there, obviously, is that implies a physical influence by what's already been defined as a non-physical object.

I've separated that comment out into its own paragraph because if you really want to discredit dualism, that's all you need to say.
The counter-arguments tend to deal with current physical unknowns, shenanigans in the realm of quantum physics. That "consciousness" or "awareness" exerts its influence on the electrical behavior of the cells in the prefrontal cortex through quantum "nudges". That argument utilizes another hole in the existing deterministic physical model of the universe.

It's also been suggested that consciousness is all post-hoc. That everything we experience has already happened, even if it's fractions of the second later. That we "feel" like we've made decisions but really we're just experiencing the machinations of the brain's processes after the fact. This works pretty well for dualism, because then you no longer have to account for influence on the process. (However, it blows a hole through the theories of most dualists, who are arguing for a soul and the free will that accompanies it.)
Essentially, in this model of dualism, awareness simply detects what the brain is doing, possibly in a specific area of the brain (most likely the prefrontal cortex) - piecing it together into a coherent narrative simply for the purposes of experiencing it. When the brain is damaged, or its behavior altered, awareness is still simply detecting what the brain is doing. This accounts for alterations in personality due to disease, etc. It is however, purely academic, because if it has no influence, then who cares? Only the curious.
There's an island in the middle of the East river - North Brother Island. I've never been there, and I'll never go there. Few people ever will. It has no influence on me, but I'm curious about it because I find it fascinating. It's so far removed from my typical experience - and that's what makes it compelling.

Ok, I've typed too much already and I realize I never really specified what my viewpoint was.
My viewpoint is probably best described as agnostic - I know there are aspects of this discussion that are currently unknowable, so I ascribe to several options that seem to be equally believable.
I guess it's the "prefrontal cortex as awareness-sensory organ" with or without "quantum influence on output by awareness", combined with "awareness is distinct from personality and memory", which allows for some interesting (if not necessarily deep) philosophical musings on what happens to that elemental awareness once it's separated from the earthly body.

that was a fantastic video!you should post it.i think its a valuable component and a great tutorial.
i agree wholeheartedly with the videos premise,and i think it also strengthens my position.
let me explain:
the reason why i stated it would be futile to argue one way other the other matters concerning faith was expressed quite eloquently in the video you shared.
i have no concrete evidence or data that can concretely convince you of anything.however,i do not reject or dismiss the findings of science in order for me to retain my faith.so while you will find me agreeing with you on many subjects concerning science,you will also find i will not put any facts on the table concerning my faith.because there are no facts and i am very aware of this.
maybe it would help if i gave you an idea how i view things:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Perceiving-Reality-A-useful-philosophy
notice the lack of dogma?of a bearded white dude with jealous,genocidal tendencies?
a total lack of judgment?
the video i shared is a very over-simplified explanation of how i view reality.
could i be wrong?
of course.my faith is not based on a book,or a theology so i have the freedom to be curious and ask questions.my faith is organic in its ability to evolve along with my understand of the universe.so if anything defines my faith,it would be science.
which is only limited by our ability to observe and test.
in my opinion,science is the testing and validating the observable physical universe.basically..the study of the creator.the more science uncovers the more that is revealed that is beautiful,poetic and far more complicated than any doctrine or dogma could ever imagine.

i state i am a man of faith because thats what it is..faith.i have faith that we all have a divine spark.a part of us that is sacred and connected to the creator/god/goddess/buddha/the All,whatever you wish to call it.we are all co-creators..we are all just "potential",raw and un-tapped.i cannot prove with any conclusive evidence that what i feel/think is correct.so it must be called what it is...faith.
we are mind/body/spirit.
i say this with conviction,but i have no way to prove this to you,and to try without any measurable means would insult you.so i dont try.

i shall give you one example where i hope you have experienced to relate,somewhat ,to what i am attempting to convey:
ever love a woman? ever love her so completely that when you were together it seemed you fell into her?and she you?where you both seemed to have created a space that was so lovely as to be over-powering?that when you were together time seemed to stop?
would you be insulted if someone said to you "bah,thats just chemicals and hormones.nothing more,nothing less".
but you KNEW..it was more,and to reduce it to mere chemicals and hormones just cheapened the experience.and if it IS just chemicals and hormones,electric synapses firing.then we should be able to replicate this affect yes?
but we cant..not yet at least.
is there something more? is it possible?
understand i am not trying to convince you of anything,i am just asking the same questions i ask myself.one of the millions i ask myself.
i left the church at 14 due to my pastors absolute failure to answer my questions.
because if you do a little research and study the history of the bible,qu'ran,torah et'al dogma and doctrine will fall short everytime.they are man made...its obvious.
but what of those questions?the answers is what i find most intimate and revealing.

i believe,through the experiences and encounters,that we are more than our sum parts.what that actually is,i do not know,but i am "faithful" we are more and shall continue to ask the questions.it is also for this reason i do not try to convince anybody else that my "faith" is valid in their eyes.that would be me seeking validation,and i need none.

the only thing i am wary of,and i think its a large reason why i do not attempt to convince anybody of my faith,is the trap of conflation.to use information and mold it to fit my world view.religious people do this ad nauseum,as do consprisy(sp?) theorists and politicians.while being faithful may fly in the face of logic,i do my best to employ logic as often as i can.
but when your questions deal with things outside the realm of the phyisical universe sometimes all you have is faith.

i am thoroughly enjoying this conversation my friend.i am doing my best to construct complete sentences and paragraphs for you.but i am the run-on-sentence king.you on the other hand,write beautifully.
thank you very much for your insight my friend.
the conversation continues.
till next time...namaste.

I don't support torture. Find somewhere on the sift that I said I support torture, and I'll shut up.

I also JUST said that I think any idiot can see that FOX is extremely supportive of the republican party. But, all other media stations have a (much more subtle, but undeniable) liberal bias.

I'm not giving any opinions here. These are facts.

(What "sins" are you talking about, pray tell?)


>> ^rougy:
>> ^deedub81:
By the way, I won't argue with you, rougy because you're absolutely right. But don't forget that CBS, ABC, and NBC, cable channels CNN and MSNBC, as well as major newspapers, news-wires, and radio outlets, especially CBS News, Newsweek, and the New York Times are the Democratic Party's propaganda outlets..
You have no fucking clue.
You don't have the synapses to tell up from down unless somebody was standing there giving you hints.
You know, deedub, we might actually like each other in real life, but you just don't get it.
Innocent people were tortured - yes tortured - and you supported that.
What did that make us, deedub? You and me, the Americans?
It's not a laughing matter, and your claim above...that basically every mainstream "news" source other than FOX NEWS is a liberal propaganda machine....
You are not paying attention, deedub.
You are lying to yourself and nothing that I say will sway you hither.

>> ^deedub81:
By the way, I won't argue with you, rougy because you're absolutely right. But don't forget that CBS, ABC, and NBC, cable channels CNN and MSNBC, as well as major newspapers, news-wires, and radio outlets, especially CBS News, Newsweek, and the New York Times are the Democratic Party's propaganda outlets..

You have no fucking clue.

You don't have the synapses to tell up from down unless somebody was standing there giving you hints.

You know, deedub, we might actually like each other in real life, but you just don't get it.

Innocent people were tortured - yes tortured - and you supported that.

What did that make us, deedub? You and me, the Americans?

It's not a laughing matter, and your claim above...that basically every mainstream "news" source other than FOX NEWS is a liberal propaganda machine....

You are not paying attention, deedub.

You are lying to yourself and nothing that I say will sway you hither.

^ YES!

Thanks for connecting that synapse for me, geo321

>> ^andybesy:
OK. So the 'wires' are called axons, and when a neuron recieves an electrical impulse it transmits neurotransmitter chemicals across a synapse to receptors in another neuron?
Is the synapse the area between two neurons?
Are all neurons chemically connected, or do some have direct electrical connections via an axon?


Axons are just a part of the neuron

(simplified picture of a neuron)
http://www.morphonix.com/software/education/science/brain/game/specimens/images/neuron_parts.gif


The synapse is basically the sum of all components: The end of in the axon sending the electrical signal, the space between them ( called a synaptic cleft) and the receiving end of the other neuron.
http://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/neuron-synapse.png

The neurons in the video communicate chemically via synapses. Axons are just extensions that each neuron has. Any given neuron can have numerous axons. At the end of each axon, there is an axon terminal this is the rounded ends you see in the video. The space between them is a synaptic cleft. Some neurons have electrical synapses instead. These are found in places where you need the fastest response but dont need to be able to interpret data or make decisions. Reflexes are an example. Electrical synapses are a minority though.

Sorry, I'll edit the description soon to try to make it more clear. I posted it in a rush.

OK. So the 'wires' are called axons, and when a neuron recieves an electrical impulse it transmits neurotransmitter chemicals across a synapse to receptors in another neuron?

Is the synapse the area between two neurons?

Are all neurons chemically connected, or do some have direct electrical connections via an axon?