Unsatisfactory Scientific Explanations?

[Justatruthseeker]

okay, i just wanted to make sure you "got it".
also remember we are talking about outrageous speeds here, on the order of nanoseconds.
that's a billion times a second.

i don't think we can do a 1 to 1 comparison of the brain to todays technology.

Sort of like the nanoseconds it takes us to process all the stimuli reaching our brains compared to the tiny bit a computer processes in those same nanoseconds? For example collision technology. I say if we could concentrate and process only one thing as it does ignoring all other input - we could react just as quickly as it does to those changing distances.

I agree - not even close. Maybe in 1000 years there might be a comparison between technology and the brain.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Because other parts of the brain took over those functions. It's called redundancy - just as we build redundancy into our machines.

So what of Eben Alexander idea that consciousness is external and not internal to the brain?

 

[lesliedellow]

Sort of like the nanoseconds it takes us to process all the stimuli reaching our brains compared to the tiny bit a computer processes in those same nanoseconds?

Oh dear. What you are seeing right in this "present" moment is what happened about a tenth of a second ago, because that is how long it takes your brain to process the information reaching it from the retina.

 

[joshua 1 9]

But what is "time"?

If rulers shrink and clocks slow under acceleration (experimentally proven), then would using time as we measure it today to calculate into the past give us the correct answer in a universe they claim is increasing in acceleration???? Would not clocks have then ticked faster in the past when acceleration was slower since they slow as acceleration increases?????

The earth is slowing down but that means the energy is being transferred. Our time is a measurement of the spin rate & orbit of the earth only there is a wobble from the other planets so that is why the length of the day & the year is not exactly consistent. Einstein of course tells us that time is relative. At the speed of light time does not change because there is no decay.

Time is a fixed period where an event takes place. We have ages and eras, like the church age and then we will have the 1,000 year reign of Christ. Then there will be a new heaven and a new earth as the old fades away.

1 To every [thing there is] a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up [that which is] planted;

3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

 

[bhsmte]

So what of Eben Alexander idea that consciousness is external and not internal to the brain?

Interesting guy, this Eben.

http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/interviews/a23248/the-prophet/

 

[bhsmte]

The earth is slowing down but that means the energy is being transferred. Our time is a measurement of the spin rate & orbit of the earth only there is a wobble from the other planets so that is why the length of the day & the year is not exactly consistent. Einstein of course tells us that time is relative. At the speed of light time does not change because there is no decay.

Time is a fixed period where an event takes place. We have ages and eras, like the church age and then we will have the 1,000 year reign of Christ. Then there will be a new heaven and a new earth as the old fades away.

1 To every [thing there is] a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up [that which is] planted;

3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

Looks like preaching.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Sort of like the nanoseconds it takes us to process all the stimuli reaching our brains compared to the tiny bit a computer processes in those same nanoseconds? For example collision technology. I say if we could concentrate and process only one thing as it does ignoring all other input - we could react just as quickly as it does to those changing distances.

I agree - not even close. Maybe in 1000 years there might be a comparison between technology and the brain.

They just had a program on TV where our response rate is pretty slow. Of course we respond slower to sound then we do light.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Looks like preaching.

Solomon did consider himself to be a preacher. "He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray". kings 11:3

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So what of Eben Alexander idea that consciousness is external and not internal to the brain?

Quite possible since it is merely energy. Death in the Bible is likened to sleep. Unlike a God of pure energy we can not hold our thoughts together on our own when the body dies. Instead we must rely on God "remembering" us and placing our consciousness back into new bodies during the resurrection. Those transformed into pure energy (144,000) will be given the ability to hold those thoughts together without a physical body.

Even in modern medical science we are not truly dead until all electrical activity (energy) in the brain ceases. It is our hope that God will "remember" us - the purpose of the memorial tomb and raise us from that state of inconsciousness when our thoughts were scattered as the energy dispersed.

 

[lesliedellow]

Quite possible since it is merely energy.

How many kilojoules precisely?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The earth is slowing down but that means the energy is being transferred. Our time is a measurement of the spin rate & orbit of the earth only there is a wobble from the other planets so that is why the length of the day & the year is not exactly consistent. Einstein of course tells us that time is relative. At the speed of light time does not change because there is no decay.

Time is a fixed period where an event takes place. We have ages and eras, like the church age and then we will have the 1,000 year reign of Christ. Then there will be a new heaven and a new earth as the old fades away.

1 To every [thing there is] a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up [that which is] planted;

3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

A day (24 hours) is as a 1000 years to God - because God is energy - they very thing that causes clocks to slow.

Are you sure? According to theory the universe began expansion faster than c and has done nothing but "continue to increase in acceleration", yet we see decay. Decay is but a measurement of energy content. The more energy a system has - the slower it decays. If you could reach the speed of light you would become pure energy - and time would then have no meaning and so would live "forever". But you can not accept Big Bang theory and reject the theory at the same time. Either it began acceleration faster than c or it didn't.

Energy is gained by acceleration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

"It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes."

The only change in speed, has according to theory - been an increase in acceleration.

Ever asked yourself why dinosaurs were so much larger in the past? Added energy would cause added mass E=mc^2. Until the increasing mass became too much for their frames at that size to handle any longer.

Misconceptions of time and energy. A bullet in it's own frame measures zero Kinetic energy - yet we know without a doubt when it hits the target it possesses it.

At the speed of c your clock and ruler would still read zero energy and c would still appear to be c. You confuse proportional to same. A second hand is a prime example. A point near the hub measures a smaller distance and shorter elapsed time than a point near the tip which is traveling faster. Both call the elapsed time a second - even if we understand they are not of the same duration - but are proportional.

You can never reach c by using your own clocks and rulers, this does not mean you can not reach c, merely that your clocks and rulers will always show you to be stationary with respect to light with zero kinetic energy. At 1/2 of c the accelerating spacecraft will to the one in that frame appear to be the stationary frame the second it stops accelerating. Your speedometer will read zero acceleration - despite traveling at 1/2 of c - just as one does on earth - despite it's velocity around it's own axis - it's velocity around the sun - the suns velocity around the galaxy - and the galaxies velocity through space.

Zero - despite knowing energy must have been gained and remained the same according to all the science we know.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Even in modern medical science we are not truly dead until all electrical activity (energy) in the brain ceases.

The problem is when you cut off oxygen to the cells in the brain they continue to produce the enzymes need to break down the oxygen that is no longer there. If you were to reintroduce oxygen to the cell then it would die. About all they can do is to lower the body temperature in an attempt to slow down the production of the enzymes. So they do not die from a lack of oxygen so much as the their lack of ability to shut down the production of the enzymes that break down the oxygen. If someone dies from hypothermia there is a lot better of a chance that they can be revived.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How many kilojoules precisely?

About this much.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/JacquelineLing.shtml

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-does-the-brain-need-s/

http://www.popsci.com/technology/ar...hips-could-overcome-power-limitations-digital

 

[lesliedellow]

God - because God is energy

Seeing as it is God, I suppose we had better make it gigajoules. How many gigajoules?

 

[lesliedellow]

About this much.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/JacquelineLing.shtml

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-does-the-brain-need-s/

http://www.popsci.com/technology/ar...hips-could-overcome-power-limitations-digital

So because the brain needs energy, the mind is energy. It needs oxygen as well, so I suppose the mind is oxygen. It needs glucose as well. So the mind is glucose.

Fairly typical of Justatruthseeker doing his version of "science".

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The problem is when you cut off oxygen to the cells in the brain they continue to produce the enzymes need to break down the oxygen that is no longer there. If you were to reintroduce oxygen to the cell then it would die. About all they can do is to lower the body temperature in an attempt to slow down the production of the enzymes. So they do not die from a lack of oxygen so much as the their lack of ability to shut down the production of the enzymes that break down the oxygen. If someone dies from hypothermia there is a lot better of a chance that they can be revived.

Because it takes longer for that energy to leave the system. The enzymes continue to allow electrical interactions - draining it from the cells instead of from food synthesis and so the brain cells begin to die, being slowly depleted of energy - but since no more is being produced - it soon uses it all up. Hence people that have died and seen visions of heaven before being brought back to life merely experience dreams - just as of they were sleeping. Merely continued electrical activity until it ceases.

As for oxygen - that's an interesting observation - have you given it further thought?

I'll post the link for you as soon as I find it in my bookmarks.

http://www.para-az.com/wei_chptr1.html

You are assuming the cell is depleted of energy because they are no longer breathing. Instead of simply using up it's own supply.

 

[bhsmte]

Solomon did consider himself to be a preacher. "He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray". kings 11:3

Good for Solomon.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Seeing as it is God, I suppose we had better make it gigajoules. How many gigajoules?

How many in their neutral universe in which they have to add 96% Fairie Dust to explain all the energetic activity they observe?

Even if they should understand the behavior and charge of clumps of matter can not be used to calculate the behavior and charge of single particles??????

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/10apr_moondustinthewind/

""We've had some surprising results," says Abbas "We're finding that individual dust grains do not act the same as larger amounts of moon dust put together. Existing theories based on calculations of the charge of a large amount of moondust don't apply to the moondust at the single particle level."

<Staff Edit>

 

[Davian]

Sort of like the nanoseconds it takes us to process all the stimuli reaching our brains compared to the tiny bit a computer processes in those same nanoseconds? For example collision technology. I say if we could concentrate and process only one thing as it does ignoring all other input - we could react just as quickly as it does to those changing distances.
I agree - not even close. Maybe in 1000 years there might be a comparison between technology and the brain.

Are you proposing that this is evidence of something in particular? That the comparison of the brain to what we have observed "intelligent designers" design is not valid?

 

[joshua 1 9]

But you can not accept Big Bang theory and reject the theory at the same time.

Depends on your concept of the big crunch. The universe could go through an eternal cycle of expanding and contracting or crunching.