The man with 30 second memory

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Paul, perhaps human memories are modified by creatively recalling them, after which we can recall memories of memories and we blur the ability to tell the original memory from later memories about those events. I doubt the original memories (wherever these are stored) are damaged just we blur these with later memories which share some sort of resonance due to similarity.

Here we go again, patching up a flakey theory by blaming the brain. Ian does the same thing. Is there any possible way to falsify these "brain as receiver" theories? No matter the objection, you can play the "oh, that's the the brain screwing around with my soul" card.

~~ Paul

[LeoM]

yes by showing that the brain stores consciousness etc.] however that has not happened.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by LeoM

yes by showing that the brain stores consciousness etc.] however that has not happened.

So theory X can only be falsified by showing that theory Y is the correct theory? Try again.

Notice how Intelligent Design is still around even though evolution has been demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt? Why do you think that wouldn't happen with brain receiver theory?

~~ Paul

[LeoM]

Paul

There is not only the mystery of life's origin as a purported result of random processes. There is also the mystery of the basic laws of nature and the cosmic constants - how they were determined and why they are so curiously "fine-tuned" to produce an orderly, stable, habitable universe. There is the mystery of quantum mechanics, which seems to show that the mind impinges on physical reality in bizarre ways, and may even call into question the nature of physical reality as such. (Is it just a projection of the mind? A few physicists think so.) There is the mystery of consciousness and its relationship to the brain, the so-called "hard problem" of neurology - how do electrochemical impulses become thoughts? How does a physical system give rise to a nonphysical phenomenon like consciousness? And there is the ultimate mystery, existence itself. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why does anything exist at all? And why are our minds capable of understanding it, of formulating laws and equations that express basic cosmological relationships so elegantly? Also the brain receiver theory can account for the overwhelming evidence for psi and survival.

[Interesting Ian]

Just to confirm I do not believe memories are stored -- so possibly I may disagree with Open Mind on this. Makes a change from skeptics though who all seem to sing from the same hymn sheet!

I would hypothesise it's not the case that memories are somehow etched in the brain in the form of information which the mind interprets. I think this is nonsensical. Rather I would hypothesis that memories are a direct perception by the self of past events. Most memories are however completely blocked by the brain. In the afterlife realm we will have full access to all our memories i.e our perception of our memories will be unimpeded.

Possibly memories may be stored, but not in the form of information i.e not in the form of an effective string of 0's and 1's. But I'm not sure what that would mean although I'm certainly willing to listen to peoples' ideas.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by LeoM

There is not only the mystery of life's origin as a purported result of random processes.

Leo, do you realize how difficult it is for me not to write off your entire post when you start out calling evolution random? Do you understand why it is not a pure random process?

There is also the mystery of the basic laws of nature and the cosmic constants - how they were determined and why they are so curiously "fine-tuned" to produce an orderly, stable, habitable universe. There is the mystery of quantum mechanics, which seems to show that the mind impinges on physical reality in bizarre ways, and may even call into question the nature of physical reality as such. (Is it just a projection of the mind? A few physicists think so.) There is the mystery of consciousness and its relationship to the brain, the so-called "hard problem" of neurology - how do electrochemical impulses become thoughts? How does a physical system give rise to a nonphysical phenomenon like consciousness? And there is the ultimate mystery, existence itself. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why does anything exist at all? And why are our minds capable of understanding it, of formulating laws and equations that express basic cosmological relationships so elegantly? Also the brain receiver theory can account for the overwhelming evidence for psi and survival.

Yes, those are all fascinating questions. What do they have to do with the falsifiability of brain receiver theory?

Also, note that you cannot ask why there is something rather than nothing until you first ask if there is a reason why there is something rather than nothing and obtain a positive response.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Ian

Just to confirm I do not believe memories are stored -- so possibly I may disagree with Open Mind on this. Makes a change from skeptics though who all seem to sing from the same hymn sheet!

How can they be retrieved if they are not stored?

I would hypothesise it's not the case that memories are somehow etched in the brain in the form of information which the mind interprets. I think this is nonsensical. Rather I would hypothesis that memories are a direct perception by the self of past events. Most memories are however completely blocked by the brain. In the afterlife realm we will have full access to all our memories i.e our perception of our memories will be unimpeded.

So you must be assuming that all events exist simultaneously. Otherwise a transcript of history must be stored, a la the akashic record. Once our brain is no longer filtering our view of simultaneous events, what will it mean to "have full access to all our memories?"

~~ Paul

[LeoM]

Paul you may want to read this

Michael Prescott's Blog: Building a better fish

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Prescott

Microevolution -- small changes such as the shape of a bird's beak or the color of a bear's fur -- seems to be adequately explained by Darwinian theory in conjunction with genetics. But the much more vexing question of macroevolution -- the really interesting changes, such as evolution from a fish to a frog -- remains up in the air.

Snore. Let's read a little:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A

~~ Paul

[LeoM]

Paul what he met was there are gaps in it