Archive for the ‘Mente e Auto-Consciencia’ Category

Vida apos a morte? Livro e Filme

quinta-feira, julho 13th, 2017

xxxx

http://hypescience.com/porque-o-voce-no-pos-vida-nao-seria-realmente-voce/

Porque o “você” no pós-vida não seria realmente você

Filme: Em um filme da Netflix produzido em 2017, chamado The Discovery, o ator Robert Redford interpreta um cientista que prova que a vida após a morte é real.

Livro: livro de Michael Shermer (em inglês, tem o nome Heavens on Earth: The Scientific Search for Afterlife, Immortality and Utopia, pela editora Henry Holt)

Extratos:

Art. – Em segundo lugar, existe a suposição de que a cópia de conexões do cérebro – o diagrama de seus contatos neurais – carregada em um computador (como alguns cientistas sugerem), ou a ressurreição do eu físico em uma vida após a morte (como muitas religiões imaginam), trazem como resultado uma pessoa acordando de algo como um longo sono, em um laboratório ou no céu. Mas uma cópia das memórias de um indivíduo, de sua mente ou mesmo de sua alma não é o indivíduo. É uma cópia dele, como um gêmeo, e ninguém olha para um irmão igual a si e pensa: “oh, olhe eu ali”. Nem a duplicação nem a ressurreição podem instanciá-lo em outro plano de existência.

Matrix/DNA: Supomos que a consciência seja um diagrama no modelo da formula feito de fótons banhados numa substancia plásmica extra-dimensional. Esta dimensão não seria revelada nem pelas seis faixas invisíveis da luz ou seis estados vibratórios desconhecidos, mas sim uma oitava configuração que conteria as sete faixas e mais um grau de transcendência. O diagrama das conexões neurais é o estado presente da reflexão da mente na matéria porem, onde a matéria é dominante e a consciência recessiva. Na morte não ocorre nem duplicação nem ressurreição e sim um retorno da bolha ao seu oceano. Apenas não sei como seria mantida a individualidade dentro do oceano.

Art: – Cada um de nós é único no mundo e na história, geograficamente e cronologicamente. Nossos genomas e conexões não podem ser duplicados, então somos indivíduos atentos a consciência de nossa mortalidade e autoconsciência sobre o que isso significa. O que isso significa? A vida não é uma disputa temporária antes do grande show que vem a seguir: é nosso proscênio pessoal no drama do cosmos, aqui e agora.

Matrix/DNA: Todos os seres cujos corpos alcançaram a complexidade suficiente para alcançar o nível da consciência, mas ainda estão nos primeiros estágios deste processo, são genes meio-conscientes funcionando na construção da consciência universal final. cada gene e’ único pois apenas ele tem uma informação especifica que e’ uma fração da totalidade de informações para formar a consciência universal. Assim, humanos possuem suas cabeças na forma de ovo dentro do qual esta sendo gerado, ainda na forma fetal ou embrionaria, esta consciência universal. O cérebro apenas faz o papel de placenta e amnion.

 

A Cultura Predadora Esta’ Na Psique que Produz o Ego Pensador e Nao na Auto-Consciencia?

sexta-feira, abril 21st, 2017

xxxx

Esta seria uma novidade, uma perspectiva muito interessante e importante. Minha missão é desconstruir a cultura milenar e Eckhart Tolle diz que ela é a produtora do pensamento continuo, do ego coletivo, não do “Eu-Consciência”. O qual seria separado, e que pode assistir os pensamentos olhando de fora. Ele diz que colapsou este pensamento continuo e consegue se separar dele, vendo-o de fora. Mas creio que ninguém mais consegue por estar preso na maquina da sobrevivência ( ele se tornou alienado, mendigo). Então o método que ele prega não serve para ninguém. Porem ele levanta esta possibilidade.

Eu estou usando o método de re-interpretar todos os conceitos, todas interpretações erradas e falsos conhecimentos dos fenômenos naturais e da natureza/instintos humanos. O que eu estaria fazendo é trazendo ao jogo o outro extremo da dualidade, o oposto oculto, para faze-lo ser conhecido e afrontado com o oposto reinante. Para os dois se auto-anularem. E segundo esta perspectiva do Tolle, estou atacando o pensamento continuo, sem o saber. Atacando o ego. Eu não estaria apenas tentando corrigir a cultura, mas alem desta, já promover o salto transcendente para o espiritual, ou consciência cósmica.

Por ora isto é assunto novo, veio de repente, não sei ainda o que pensar. Registro aqui, traduzindo o principal texto onde Tolle diz isto, para pensar… opa… para conscientizar, e pesquisar.

http://www.eckharttolle.com/article/The-Power-Of-Now-Spirituality-And-The-End-Of-Suffering

Every morning we awaken from sleep and from our dreams and enter the state we call wakefulness.

Toda manhã nos acordamos do sono e de nossos sonhos e entramos no estado que nos denominamos de “despertado”.

A continuous stream of thoughts, most of them repetitive, characterizes the normal wakeful state. So what is it that we awaken from when spiritual awakening occurs?

Uma continua corrente de pensamentos, a maioria deles repetitivos, caracteriza o estado normal do acordado. Então o que é aquele despertar desde quando o espiritual despertamento ocorre?

We awaken from identification with our thoughts. Everybody who is not awake spiritually is totally identified with and run by their thinking mind – the incessant voice in the head.

Nos despertamos ou nos separamos da nossa identificação com nossos pensamentos. Todos aqueles que não são despertados espiritualmente estão totalmente identificados com sua mente pensante e são dirigidos por ela – aquela incessante voz em sua cabeça.

Thinking is compulsive: you can’t stop, or so it seems. It is also addictive: you don’t even want to stop, at least not until the suffering generated by the continuous mental noise becomes ‎insuportável‎.

Pensar é compulsivo: você não pode parar, ou ao menos parece que não. pensar também é viciante: você nem quer mesmo parar, ao menos não até que o sofrimento gerado pelo ruido mental continuo se torne insuportável.

In the unawakened state you don’t use thought, but thought uses you. You are, one could almost say, possessed by thought, which is the collective conditioning of the human mind that goes back many thousands of years.

No estado de “não-despertado” você não usa pensamentos, pois os pensamentos usam você. Você esta’, alguém poderia dizer, possuído pelo pensamento, o qual é o condicionamento coletivo da mente humana que retorna ao passado por milhares de anos.

You don’t see anything as it is, but distorted and reduced by mental labels, concepts, judgments, opinions and reactive patterns. Your sense of identity, of self, is reduced to a story you keep telling yourself in your head.

Você não vê nada como realmente é, mas torcido e reduzido por mentais conceitos, julgamentos, etiquetas, opiniões e padrões reativos. Seu senso de identidade, do seu eu, esta reduzido a uma historia que você mantem dizendo a você mesmo em sua cabeça.

“Me and my story”: this what your life is reduced to in the unawakened state. And when your life is thus reduced, you can never be happy for long, because you are not yourself.

“Eu e minha historia”: isto é ao que sua vida é reduzida no estado de despertado, acordado. E quando sua vida é assim reduzida, você nunca pode ser feliz por um tempo mais duradouro, porque você não é você mesmo.

xxxx

Analises da Matrix/DNA:

Isto faz um tremendo sentido, para mim, depois que descobri a teoria que liga a evolução biológica `a evolução cosmológica e com isso descobri uma outra visão do mundo. As minhas descobertas indicam que a humanidade esta’ pensando tudo errado, esta dessintonizada da logica natural, sem sintonia com o ritmo natural da evolução, porque construiu para si uma visão do mundo falsa.

Mas não faz sentido esta separação entre auto-consciência e mente, não consigo captar bem isto. O que faria sentido seria dizer que temos uma auto-consciência errada, falsa, que nao somos a consciência da natureza, do universo. Mas que por vir de uma raiz natural, ela seria sujeita a ser consertada. Isto significaria que nos não temos e nunca tivemos a consciência verdadeira, nem o embrião dela. O que pode ser respaldado num fenômeno real, conhecido por todos: a consciência/imaginação das crianças, que acredita nas causas erradas, fantasiadas, para os fenômenos que observa. Em termos coletivo, ou de unidade de consciência fragmentada em fracões nas cabeças humanas, o coletivo imitaria o individual, ou seja, a humanidade ainda esta’ na sua infância.

O Tolle diz que não, que ele teve uma experiencia de transformação dentro da cabeça, com colapsos mentais, clarões, afloramento espiritual, etc. Como não posso saber como foi essa experiencia, tenho que manter tanto a minha teoria quando a dele, em suspenso.

Nos precisamos urgente de um método, uma estrategia, não para impor a minha visão de mundo, mas para desconstruir as falsas interpretações que são os alicerces da visão do mundo reinante. Precisamos salvar 7,8 bilhões de humanos sob o instinto de presas e médios predadores que serão eliminados enquanto os 200 milhões de grandes e médios predadores os mantem em estado vegetativo e estarão preparados tecnologicamente para deixar o planeta quando a Terra não mais suportar a vida aqui… o que pode acontecer a qualquer momento daqui para a frente… ou demorar milhões de anos. Seria impossível transformar a cultura na cabeça do grande predador – ele tem os caninos psíquicos que exigem este tipo de sistema social para sobreviverem – e talvez também seja impossível faze-lo com os 7,8 bilhões dependendo do grau em que esta o condicionamento mental. Mas se a vaca soubesse o que a espera alem da cerca do seu pasto, no matadouro, talvez ela se motivasse a romper a cerca. Nisto deve consistir enfaticamente minha pregação.

O que é que – em relacao ao individual – conduz a mente imaginativa e fantasiosa da criança a ser corrigida `a medida que vai entrando na vida adulta e enfrentando o mundo real? Sera’ que este processo também vai ser aplicado naturalmente `a criança coletiva? Se sim, minha missão nada tem a fazer. Talvez apenas pudesse acelerar o processo. O que já é um motivo para continua-la, pois não sabemos se haverá tempo para o processo apenas natural.

Eckhart Tolle: Impressionante evento psiquico, lider espiritual americano

terça-feira, abril 18th, 2017

xxxxx

http://www.eckharttolle.com/article/The-Power-Of-Now-Spirituality-And-The-End-Of-Suffering

For two years, a small man sits quietly on a park bench. People walk by, lost in their thoughts. One day someone asks him a question. In the weeks that follow there are more people and more questions. Word spreads that the man is a “mystic,” and has discovered something that brings peace and meaning into our lives. It sounds like fiction, but today that man, Eckhart Tolle, is known worldwide for his teachings on spiritual enlightenment through the power of the present moment. His first book, The Power of Now, is an international bestseller, and has been translated into 17 languages. More than 20 years have passed since Eckhart Tolle answered his first question on that park bench. While his audience has grown, his message remains the same: that it is possible to stop struggling in your life, and find joy and fulfillment in this moment, and no other.

Says Eckhart:

“For most people, spiritual awakening is a gradual process. Rarely does it happen all at once. When it does, though, it is usually brought about by intense suffering. That was certainly true in my case. For years my life alternated between depression and acute anxiety. One night I woke up in a state of dread and intense fear, more intense than I had ever experienced before. Life seemed meaningless, barren, hostile. It became so unbearable that suddenly the thought came into my mind, “I cannot live with myself any longer.” The thought kept repeating itself several times. Suddenly, I stepped back from the thought, and looked at it, as it were, and I became aware of the strangeness of that thought: “If I cannot live with myself, there must be two of me – the I and the self that I cannot live with.” And the question arose, “Who is the ‘I’ and who is the self that I cannot live with?” There was no answer to that question, and all thinking stopped. For a moment, there was complete inner silence. Suddenly I felt myself drawn into a whirlpool or a vortex of energy. I was gripped by an intense fear, and my body started to shake. I heard the words, “Resist nothing,” as if spoken inside my chest. I could feel myself being sucked into a void. Suddenly, all fear disappeared, and I let myself fall into that void. I have no recollection of what happened after that.

The next morning I awoke as if I had just been born into this world. Everything seemed fresh and pristine and intensely alive. A vibrant stillness filled my entire being. As I walked around the city that day, the world looked as if it had just come into existence, completely devoid of the past. I was in a state of amazement at the peace I felt within and the beauty I saw without, even in the midst of the traffic. I was no longer labeling and interpreting my sense perceptions – an almost complete absence of mental commentary. To this day, I perceive and interact with the world in this way: through stillness, not through mental noise. The peace that I felt that day, more than 20 years ago, has never left me, although it has varying degrees of intensity.

At the time, I had no conceptual framework to help me understand what had happened to me. Years later, I realized that the acute suffering I felt that night must have forced my consciousness to withdraw from identification with the unhappy self, the suffering “little me,” which is ultimately a fiction of the mind. This withdrawal must have been so complete that the suffering self collapsed as if the plug had been pulled out of an inflatable toy. What was left was my true nature as the ever present “I AM”: consciousness in its pure state prior to identification with form. You may also call it pure awareness or presence.

xxxx

Pelo pouco que sei de Tolle, ele teve sorte de cair no momento exato: nao sei porque mas nos anos de 2.000, o publico estava procurando e consumindo muitos livros de auto-ajuda, pensamento positivo, etc. E ele tinha uma mensagem prometedora, era afinal um exemplar vivo bem suscedido no que todos buscavam.

Mas como todos os outros livros e seus autores, o conselho de Tolle era impraticavel, por isso seu ensinamento, nao compreendido, caiu na inutilidade, nos tempos de hoje. Pois o que Tolle pode fazer e fez, ninguem na vida moderna consegue fazer. Apos o evento psiquico, ao conseguir a sublimacao mental, ele caiu na rua como um sem-casa, mendigo. Parou de estudar, de trabalhar e ficou dois anos sentado em bancos de praca. E nunca mais iria voltar a uma vida profissional, nao fosse algumas pessoas se acercando dele e fazendo perguntas. Ele foi arrancado da sarjeta pelo publico. Como copiei logo abaixo um texto do Wickipedia, sua familia aguentou-o nestes dois anos com casa e comida, mas o repreendia dizendo que tornara-se irreesponsavel e insano.

Quem consegue repetir isto na vida moderna? Ou melhor, quem vai querer conhecer o Nirvana, alcancar a sublimacao mental, a tal preco? Ninguem. Por isso a tecnica que ele ensina para se obter o que ele obteve nao funcionou para mais ninguem. E poucos tem uma familia que os suportariam como paria.

Alem disso, mesmo que alguem conseguisse faze-lo, mas que nao fosse rico para se auto-sustentar, e tivesse que voltar ao trabalho professional, `a rotina do dia a dia dentro de uma fabrica, um escritorio, etc., quem iria conseguir ” contemplar e se admirar do presente… e para o resto da vida ficar neste estado? Ora o ambiente obrigatyorio para 90% ou mais da populacao mundial e’ o incomodo ambiente rotineiro do trabalho na repetitive e enfadonha producao em serie. Que mundo bonito existe para quem esta dentro de uma fabrica na maior parte do seu dia?

Portanto, se todos conseguissem a transcendencia para o estado de consciencia cosmica, a economia do planeta parava e todos morreriam rapido. A conclusao inevitavel e’ que Tolle esta’ sendo um professor do mal. O relato de sua experiencia unica e’ de grande ajuda para a busca do entendimento do que somos, como funciona o cerebro, que existiria uma divisao entre mente e consciencia, etc. Isto ao menos para minhas pesquisas e os paralelos que vejo entre esta experiencia e o que estao sugerindo meus modelos teoricos, tem inestimavel valor, poiss me ajudara a desenvolver mais minha busca.

Entao a diferenca entre a pregacao do Tolle e a minha esta nisso. Tambem ninguem vai largar tudo para se isolar na selva por sete anos, ou ninguem vai ter a sorte que tive em tropecar com Serra Pelada, conseguir por sorte a propriedade de um estabelecimento commercial que me pagou as despesas de manutencao na selva e me permitia retornar ao contacto com humanos em alguns meses por ano. Mas eu nao estou ensinando como conseguir um evento psiquico de transformacao de nivel mental evolutivo. Estou pregando uma promessa para se obter fatos concretos baseados num metodo de busca que lida apenas com fatos concretos, que sao do conhecimento publico. A visao de mundo onde somos 8 bilhoes de genes construindo a nos mesmos em um pode gerar uma comportamento humano coletivo que ao pouco vai mudando o Sistema, a economia baseada na auto-sustentabilidade da formula liberando a humanidade do trabalho rotineiro, e assim com o ambiente mudado e adequado para receber o que Tolle se tornou, este e’ um caminho palpavel e racional. Porem nao e’ o caminho do milagre facil e rapido de Tolle, e’ um caminho arduo e demorado.

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

Tolle stopped studying for his doctorate, and for a period of about two years after this he spent much of his time sitting, “in a state of deep bliss,” on park benches in Russell Square, Central London, “watching the world go by.” He stayed with friends, in a Buddhist monastery, or otherwise slept rough on Hampstead Heath. His family thought him “irresponsible, even insane.”

Pesquisa da Matrix:

Tolle me fez notar algo que nao havia pensado. O Sistema-formula tem uma entidade abstrata que suplanta e governa seu interior, suas partes. Seria o software do hardware. No caso de Tolle, o nivel psiquico dos pensamentos mais o Sistema nervosa simpatico seria a sub-entidade de cada parte, enquanto o Eu separado dos pensamentos, a consciencia normal de Tolle e dos humanos normais seria a entidade superior das partes. Ou seja, cada parte teria uma fracao da entidade total do Sistema. Quando Tolle perde a sub-entidade individual – a cosnciencia da parte do Sistema – ele suplanta-se como Sistema e cai na esfera da hierarquia dos sistemas, ou seja, cai num Sistema superior ao humano, o qual ele interpreta como cosnciencia universal, do cosmos. Entao ele era – e todos humanos normais sao – e em yermos de software da formula, um fractal menor dentro desse mesmo fractal, porem maior.

Neurocientista Acredita que a Consciencia e’ Apenas uma Ilusao

terça-feira, abril 11th, 2017

xxxx

A grande maioria do povo brasileiro ainda não sabe o que se passa nos modernos apóstolos das nações ricas que proliferam nas universidades modelando as mentes da juventude. Um destes famosos e muito ativo na imprensa, e’ o cientista Daniel Dennet. Traduzo aqui uma entrevista que ele deu para a BBC ( BBC Radio 4’s The Life Scientific ) onde ele expõe completamente essa visão de mundo que caminha ao lado do poder mundial hoje. Porem, a seguir, escrevo a interpretação disso tudo sob a perspectiva de outra diferente visão do mundo que pode dar uma ideia de quanto podem estarem errados e como isso esta’ se tornando demasiado perigoso para a sobrevivência da humanidade que já vive na corda bamba. Boa leitura e perdão por alguns errinhos feitos `as pressas, com equipamento inadequado para português, etc.:

Brain

Image copyright Science Photo Library

O cientista cognitivo Daniel Dennet acredita que nossos cerebros sao maquinas, feitas de bilhoes de pequenos robots – nossos neuronios, ou celulas cerebrais.

Num infeliz memorandum escrito em 1965, o filosofo Hubert Dreyfus afirmou que humanos sempre iriam bater computadores no jogo de xadrez porque falta intuicao `as maquinas. Dennet discordou.

Poucos anos depois, Dreyfus se encontrou muito embaracado perdendo no check-mate para um computador.

E em maio de 1997, o computador da IBM, Azul Profundo, derrotou o campeao mundial de xadrez, Garry Kasparov.

Foram muitos os que ficaram infelizes com estes resultados e argumentaram que o jogo de xadrez seria um jogo com uma logica enfadonha. Que computadores não precisam de intuicao para ganhar. O alvo da competicao mudou em busca de outro jogo.

Daniel Dennet sempre acreditou que nossas mentes sao maquinas. Para a questao nao e’ se computadores pordem se tornarem humanos. E sim se humanos podem ser tao bons e sabios quanto computadores.

Numa entrevista para a BBC ( BBC Radio 4’s The Life Scientific ), Dennet disse que nao ha’ nada de especial sobre intuicao. ” Intuicao e’ simplesmente conhecer uma coisa sem conhecer como voce chegou nela”.

Daniel Dennett

Daniel Dennett acredita que nossas celulas cerebrais sao robots respondendo a sinais quimicos – Image copyright Maria Simons

Dennet lamenta que o filosofo Rene Descartes foi o responsavel por permanentemente poluir nosso pensamento sobre como pensar a respeito da mente humana.

Descartes nao poderia imaginar que uma maquina seria capaz de pensar, sentir, e imaginar. Tais talentos so podiam terem sido dados por Deus. Ele esteve escrevendo no seculo XVII, quando maquinas eram feitas de correias e ferro, nao CPUs e RAM, por isso nos devemos perdoa-lo.

Robots feitos de robots

Nossos cérebros sao feitos de uma centena de bilhoes de neuronios. Se você fosse contar todos os neuronios do seu cerebro na razao de um por segundo, você gastaria 3.000 anos!

Nossas mentes sao feitas de maquinas moleculares, mais conhecidas como celulas cerebrais. E se voce achar isto depressante entao a voce falta imaginacao, diz Dennet.

Kasparov v Deep Blue, 1997

Image copyright Getty Images O povo ficou chocado quando um computador derrotou o campeão mundial de xadrez Garry Kasparov in 1997

“Voce conhece o poder de uma maquina feita com um trilhao de pessas em movimento?”, ele pergunta.

” Nao nao somos apenas robots”, ele diz. ” Nos somos robots, feito de robots que sao feitos de outros robots”.

Our brain cells are robots that respond to chemical signals. The motor proteins they create are robots. And so it goes on.

Nossas celulas cerebrais sao robots que respondem a sinais quimicos, apenas isso. As proteinas como motores que elas criam sao robots. E assim por diante.

Como a tela de um telefone

Auto-consciencia e’ real. Claro que e’. Nos experimentam os ela a cada dia. Mas para Daniel Dennet, consciencia nao e’ mais real que a tela de seu laptop ou seu telefone.

Os programadores que fazem estes aparelhos de telefones espertos chamam eles de ” ilusao de usuario”. E’ um pouco depreciativo, talvez, mas eles acertaram em cheio.

Pressionando os icones em nossos telefones nos faz sentir no controle. Nos sentimos que controlamos o heardware interno ao aparelho. mas o que nos fazemos com nossos dedos em nossos telefones e’ antes uma patetica contribuicao `a soma total das atividades do telefone. E, e’ claro, ele nunca diz a nos nada de como ele funciona.

A auto-consciencia humana e’ a mesma coisa, diz Dennet. ” Ela e’, para o cerebro, a ” ilusao do usuario”, dele mesmo.”

Ela parece real e importante para nos mas ela nao e’ de grande importancia. ”

O cerebro nao tem que entender como o cerebro funciona.

Não somos tao inteligentes como pensamos

Nos sabemos que nos evoluimos dos macacos. Nos sabemos que compartilhamos 99% do nosso DNA com chimpanzes.

Nos sabemos que alguns dos nossos comportamentos sao de natureza animal, ( geralmente os instintos dos quais nos nao nos orgulhamos). Nossas maiores qualidades especiais, nossa inteligencia, nossas intuições e criatividade, nos gostamos de pensar que vem de causas muito especiais.

Chimp digging with a tool

Nos humanos temos tradicionalmente enfatizado nossas diferencas do reino animal, mas nos somos nada mais que o resultado das experiencias evolucionarias – Image copyright ADAM JONES/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY

Nossos cerebros, como nossos corpos, tem evoluido durante centenas de milhoes de anos. Eles sao o resultado de milhoes e milhoes de anos de perigosos “jogos de erro e julgamento” que totalizam nossas experiencias evolucionarias.

Desde uma perspectiva evolucionaria, nossa habilidade de pensar nao e’ diferente da nossa habilidade de fazer a digestao, diz Dennet.

Ambas estas atividades biologicas – fazer digestao e pensar – podem ser explicadas pela Selecao Natural da Teoria de Darwin, ffrequentemente descrita como a sobrevivencia do mais adaptado.

 

Julgamento e Erro

Nos evoluimos de uma incompreendida bacteria. Nossas mentes, com todos seus remarcaveis talentos, sao o resultado de uma infinidade de experiencias biologicas.

Nosso genio nao nos foi dado por Deus. Ele e’ o resultado de milhoes de anos de erros e julgamentos – para na proxima vez nao cometer o mesmo erro ou errar menos. Assim vamos acertando, evoluindo.

When a bacteria moves towards a food source, scientists don’t praise the bacteria for being clever. That would be highly unscientific. But when scientists describe thinking as a biological activity, they risk ridicule or outrage (depending on the company they keep).

” Quando uma bacteria se move na direcao de uma fonte de alimentos, nossos cientistas nao elogiam a bacteria por ser inteligente. Eles seriam demasiados anti-cientificos. Mas quando os cientistas descrevem o pensamento como uma atividade biologica, eles se arriscam a serem ridicularizados e blasfemados. Mas essa e’ a verdade”, diz Dennet.

Such fierce reductionism offends. How naïve to suggest that there is nothing more to the human mind than a bunch of neurons!

Esse afiado reducionismo ofende o orgulho dos humanos. Quao absurdo e’ sugerir que nao existe nada mais na mente humana do que um monte de neuronios!

Descartes grosseiramente subestimou as maquinas. Alan Turing colocou as coisas nos eixos. Ele previu que no final do seculo XX: ” O uso de palavras e da opiniao educada tera alterado tanto que uma pessoa sera capaz de falar de maquinas pensantes sem ser contraditorio”.

Computadores em 1960 nao eram tao bons no xadrez. Agora eles tocam saxofone como John Coltrane.

Nesta era digital dos supercomputadores e telefones espertos, certamente nao sera dificil imaginar como uma maquina feita de trilhoes de pessas auto-moventes pode ser exatemente um humano.

xxxx

Analise pela perspectiva da cosmovisão da Matrix/DNA

A Humanidade ja construiu varias civilizações poderosas – como a dos egípcios, dos babilônicos, dos romanos, etc – e todas caíram. Porque? Porque foram construídas tendo por base uma interpretação errada da realidade do mundo, o qual os pegou de surpresa. Agora temos mais um modelo de civilização, moderna, se assentando em cima de uma cosmovisão que se afirma a passos largos através das escolas e do poder. Tera’ a humanidade descoberto a verdadeira interpretação do mundo e com isso esta civilização não vai desaparecer, ou vai se transcender naturalmente?

Claro que não. Basta a dizer, primeiro, que nos ainda somos quase cegos, vemos e percebemos nos objetos e no mundo apenas uma faixa das sete faixas de organização da matéria mostrada pela luz visível. Segundo que esse nosso minusculo cérebro jamais seria capaz de processar as informações da verdade ultima de um mundo que não pode ter surgido por um “começo” mas também não pode estar existindo infinitamente sem ter tido um “começo”. Tem que existir uma terceira alternativa mas talvez nenhum tipo de cérebro sera capaz de entende-la. Nos não podemos ser fanáticos em nenhuma visão de mundo como estão sendo os camaradas de Daniel Bennet, se quisermos uma civilização que se transforme sem perecer antes.

Eu concordo com a comparação entre nos – todos os tipos de sistemas biológicos, de bactérias a humanos atuais – e maquinas. Porque os sistemas biológicos foram criados por uma maquina e vivem numa biosfera em estado de caos que aos poucos vai sendo modelada pela maquina envolvente para se tornar uma maquina biológica. Nos fomos criados por um sistema astronomico, estelar, que foi descrito quase corretamente pela mecânica Newtoniana, e este sistema foi produzido por outra maquina que ( aqui inicio a entrar com a cosmovisão da Matrix/DNA) alcançou o ultimo nível de mecanicismo possível na Natureza – esta Via Láctea. Não em termos de complexidade e parafernália de acessórios mas em termos de inteligencia para a melhor sobrevivência, a simples mas complicada maquina galáctica da’ de dez a zero em qualquer outra supermáquina que venha a ser criada. Basta ver o modelo dessa maquina neste website que você concordara comigo.

Mas nos, na forma de nosso ancestral longínquo – esta galaxia – cometemos ja naquela época, o mesmo erro de construir castelos de areia devido conhecimentos arrogantes que não são os conhecimentos da Natureza. A galaxia pensou que conhecia o mundo certo, pensou que sabia de todos os recursos do Universo, criou o Paraíso Eterno para si mesma e se encarnou neste paraíso. Mas ela desconhecia um recurso escondido nas mangas da Natureza, a força da entropia, que chega sorrateira, sutil, produz a degeneração e a morte final de qualquer pretendente a motor perpetuo.

Os sistemas biológicos, encabeçados pelo corpo humano e seu magnifico cérebro, estão ainda muito longe de conseguir o poder e a qualidade de existência da maquina perfeita que nos criou. Isso significa que ela vai nos fazer evoluir muito mais ainda e com isso Dennet ainda não contou: evoluem os supercomputadores, mas evoluem e surgem novos sensores cerebrais, o cérebro humano estará sempre na frente, mesmo que não esteja em termos de poder, digamos, militar.

Até o chimpanzé, concordo plenamente que fomos como robots. Somos 99% iguais, em termos de sistemas biológicos. Porem, a minha cosmovisão esta afirmando que na transição de chimpanzés para humanos houve mais uma surpresa da Natureza, mais uma força ou lei natural com a qual nossa ciadora não contava. Existia algo dentro dela mesmo que ela desconhecia. Ela já continha o potencial para ser sistema biológico, ela chegava a expressar as propriedades biológicas mascaradas de mecânica, na verdade ela não era como um supercomputador, ela era uma maquina-viva, e os nossos computadores, por não terem este elemento natural encriptado em seu ser, nunca poderao ser uma maquina-viva, por mais que sonhe o Dennet. Computadores nao foram feitos pelo DNA. As galaxias sim, pela formula universal que tomou a forma biológica de DNA.

Para explicar essa diferença infinita entre nos e os robots, devo tentar rebuscar uma analogia.

Na embriologia,  o corpo que sera humano, se torna consciente entre os 6 e 8 meses. Mas foi a base fisiológica daquele corpo, com seu cérebro, que criou a consciência por si mesmo, pela primeira vez na historia do universo? Não porque a consciência já existe fora de seu pequeno universo, sua bolsa embrionaria, e existe a muito tempo. Mas como então, se ela também não foi imposta de fora para dentro? Ora, a consciência já estava encriptada, em estado potencial, desde o momento inicial da fecundação, e ficou ali apenas em estado latente durante todos aqueles meses.

Sei que os Dennet da vida iriam me interromper aqui, irados. ” Mostre-nos, de a prova, de que ela esta nos genes. Quais genes? O fato e’ que qualquer cérebro ao chegar a um certo estagio evolutivo, produz auto-consciência, não que ele a tenha recebido por transmissão genética.”

E’ um caso a discutir penso eu. Isso quer dizer que todo corpo masculino ao chegar aos 18 anos produz bigodes, estes não são caracteres transmitidos? Mas porque então nunca vi nenhum filho de moreno produzir bigodes louros ou ruivos?

O fato é que genes são depositários de informações, porem para eles se moverem e executarem suas missões existe um comando de instruções, igual a um computador em que o hardware precisa de um software. A todo ano nasce uma nova geração de hardwares, mas não são os hardwares que produzem os softwares que os operam. Estes vem de fora, de uma mente que esta fora do hardware.

O fato é que a cosmovisão da Matrix/DNA pode explicar tudo o que existe no mundo que o Sr. Dennet conhece e sabe explicar, porem, organizando, conectando as coisas de uma maneira diferente, também logica e racional, e com isso a historia do mundo muda, o mundo adquire um significado diferente da cosmovisão do Sr. Dennet. Eu apliquei os mesmos mecanismos darwinianos que o Sr. Dennet aplicou para aprender a evolução a partir das bactérias e vir subindo ate chegar aos humanos, porem o fiz de forma reversa, do futuro para o passado, cheguei `as bactérias do mesmo jeito, mas não parei ai numa sopa sem vida qualquer. Das primeiras moléculas orgânicas Darwin me conduziu ao sistema solar, `a galaxia, a nebulosa primordial de átomos, cheguei também no Big Bang, e pude inclusive dar uma olhada na nevoa escura alem dele para ai suspeitar que Darwin continua funcionando.

Eu vi os astronômicos como uma maquina, vi os átomos como robots, mas todos eles tinham vida como os biológicos. A maquina que Dennet fez e esta aprimorando esta errada em relacao a maquina natural e por isso sua interpretação do cérebro também esta’. Se for falar de consciência então…

Os processos vitais que existem aqui no meio biológico não foram inventados pela Terra, e seus sistemas astronômicos. Eles traziam estes processos dentro de si sem se aperceberem dele como o embrião não percebeu que trazia em si a consciência desde o primeiro dia ate os 8 meses. Neste Universo esta ocorrendo um processo de reprodução genético-computacional da coisa desconhecida que gerou este universo. Não existe problema nenhum que para universos, o embrião que esta sendo gerado demore 13,8 bilhões de anos para manifestar a consciência que já existia la fora, dentro da cabeça de seus criadores. Pois o Universo para nos parece ter uma dimensão quase infinita, seu tamanho e’ inimaginável, mas também é seu tempo. O que são 13,8 bilhões de anos para nos, para o universo são seus 8 meses. E dai? Qual o problema?

A Matrix/DNA apresenta uma outra visão das bases da consciência quando ela detecta na totalidade das irradiações no espectro eletromagnético uma substancia que pode ser uma onda de luz que contem encriptada a formula para sistemas, inclusive para a consciência como sistema natural, mas isso é um assunto mais complexo.

A auto-consciência dormia nos átomos, sonhou com paraísos eternos  nas galaxias, começou a acordar nos sistemas biológicos como as plantas e animais primitivos, começou a despertar nos chimpanzés e veio a se levantar no homem. E dai? Qual o problema?

” O problema é que você não tem provas disso”.

Porem eu tenho muito mais fatos arrolados como evidencias do que você tem para sua interpretação do mundo. E você não me mostrou em cima da mesa nenhum neurônio atuando como robot, como seu supercomputador, por si só. Muito menos me mostrou emergindo deste robozinho algo parecido com auto-consciência.

Nossa civilização tem que ter um destino melhor que as anteriores. Vai ser tudo desmanchado, – a evolução não espera e não perdoa – mas podemos fazer disso uma transição muito menos dolorosa, e podemos nos mesmos, não outros reis e imperadores e servos, transcender para a nova civilização mais sincronizada com a que esta determinada a ser, não pela maquina galáctica, não pelo universo, mas por aquilo ou aquele que esta sendo reproduzido através de nos.

Pesquisa da Teoria de que a Auto-Consciência tenha por base, os Neuronios

segunda-feira, abril 10th, 2017

xxxx

http://authors.library.caltech.edu/40352/1/148.pdf

Towards a neurobiological theory of consciousness

Francis Crick and Christof Koch

seminars in Ttl JIUROSCIENCES, Vol2, 1990: pp 263-275

Li o PDF inteiro e tive a final impressão de que ele faz com o atual conhecimento da neurobiologia o que Francis Bacon fez no levantamento do que era conhecido cientificamente para coordenar as pesquisas futuras. Ao invés de ir direto no objeto da consciência – como sugere o titulo – ele deixa a consciência de lado na maior parte do paper e se focaliza no atual conhecimento da atenção visual, a qual ‘e uma das características da auto-consciência. Desta ele deduz vários mecanismos e propriedades para entao projeta-los ao tema da consciência, sugerindo que esta funcione da mesma forma.

Observar que o paper foi escrito em 1990 e devido ao massivo ataque cientifico neste assunto nos últimos anos, muita coisa aqui deve estar ultrapassada.

Um trecho do texto ( pag.274), resume o escopo do paper:

Why, then, is consciousness so mysterious? A striking feature of our visual awareness (and of consciousness in general) is that it is very rich in information, even if much of it is retained for only a rather brief time. Not only can the system switch rapidly from one object to another, but in addition it can handle a very large amount of information in a coherent way at a single moment. We believe it is mainly these two abilities, combined with the very transient memory systems involved, that has made it appear so strange. We have no experience (apart from the very limited view provided by our own introspection) of machines having complex, rapidly changing and highly parallel activity of this type. When we can both construct such machines and understand their detailed behavior, much of the mystery of consciousness may disappear.

Qual a repercussão do paper na Teoria da Matrix/DNA sobre a auto-consciência?

Teremos que analisar cada informação, cada resultado experimental, a luz da formula. mas uma pergunta nos formula a visão da Matrix/DNA: o que faz a energia ser ativada e abrir ou fechar portas numa operação de computador: o hardware ou o software? Na minha ignorância sobre computação, arrisco que seja o software. Pois a formula e teoria total da Matrix/DNA tem sugerido que auto-consciência é uma especie mais complexa do nosso software computacional, e a base cerebral, neurológica, é o hardware. Tambem sugere a teoria que sempre existiu na evolução universal um processo de feed-back entre software e hardware nos sistemas naturais, sendo que o software obriga a renovação e complexificação do hardware enquanto as experiencias e novas informações colhidas por este vai despertando ou fazendo expressar maiores porcões do software, que por sua vez retorna remodelando o hardware.

Neste sentido, o hardware – ou a base biológica cerebral – também aciona as sinapses produzindo mais auto-consciência. Mas pode ser que isto ocorra como na evolução genética, na qual uma mutação genética causada por um individuo não deve alterar seu fenótipo em vida, senão longo tempo depois nos seus herdeiros. Enfim são muitos os senões a serem considerados aqui, mas a teoria da Matrix/DNA poe em duvida a crença fundamental final da neurologia moderna: a de que o cérebro produziu, criou, a auto-consciência.

O fato dos 40 hertz como amperagem constante oscilatória das sinapses nos faz pensar na divisão de vibrações entre os diferentes estados das diferentes funções da formula, principalmente no grafico da luz. 40 hertz um estagio mediano das vibrações, o que coincide com o estado mediano da luz visível e da posição da orbita planetária. Um planeta com vida em uma diferente orbita planetária, digamos de vibração 50, exigiria uma forma de evolução baseada nos 50 hertz, e assim por diante. (?)

Se tiver tempo, devo anotar cada nome de cada elemento ou região do cérebro e buscar a sua figura e posição no cérebro, visando descobrir suas funções sistêmicas e como a formula esta montada.

 

Neurologistas numa afronta a Deus, numa heresia contra a Ciencia, e produzindo doenca mental nos estudantes e publico geral

domingo, abril 9th, 2017

xxxx

Qualquer pessoa percebe – apos tomar conhecimento do que as Ciencias do Cerebro sabem de real hoje – que quase nada se sabe sobre a consciencia humana. Nesta aula-palestra em video, um dos mais renomados cientistas da area de neurologia, deixa claro que ele quase nada entende de consciencia. Mas assim como esta claro que quase nada sabemos sobre universos e mesmo assim tem gente vivendo no meio cientifico que acredita piamente que universos sao criados por Big Bangs e tal como interpretaram estes bigbangs – o orador tenta obnubilar nossa ignorancia sobre consciencia com a impressao que ele sabe muitas coisas arrolando suas pessoais interpretacoes de testes e experimentos sobre pequenos detalhes e propriedades expressadas pela consciencia. De maneira que teorias interpretativas sobre consciencia sao vendidas ao publico como se fossem fatos cientificos. Porem nao e’ a Ciencia que esta divulgando o que sabe – quase nada – e sim a ideologia imaginativa tendenciosa da pessoa usando o nome da Ciencia. O metodo frio, calculista e reducionista que a Ciencia tem aplicado na investigacao sobre a materia natural e’ conduzido a ser aplicado ao fenomeno ainda invisivel e intocavel da consciencia. A mentalidade mecanicista que resulta da doutrinacao academica derivada deste metodo e’ empregada na tentativa de descrever a mente impregnando-a com este pretenso mecanicsmo universal.

Qualquer humano que nao foi doutrinado pela academia nas universidades percebe sua consciencia e percebe que ela nao e’ uma maquina. percebe e se revolta quando ve o orador colocar como base criadora de sua consciencia, a “beast machine”, bem delineada no video. Entao temos que nos mover-mos, atuarmos com urgencia, gritando alto contra esta doutrina, pois ela esta destruindo e aprisionando a mente livre de nossos jovens e futuras geracoes. Por isso eu fiz questao de gritar colocando meus comentarios logo abaixo do video no YouTube ( copiados abaixo). Convido algum possivel perdido leitor que venha a este quase oculto e muito rustico website a fazer o que penso ser seu dever como humano que considera-se em compromisso com a grande causa de dar `as nossas futuras geracoes uma vida melhor do que a absurda vida que tivemos, lutando contra estas pessimas acoes que criaram e ainda alimentam esta nefasta cultura que tem produzido estas absurdas civilizacoes desumanas.

The Neuroscience of Consciousness – with Anil Seth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRel1JKOEbI

Meus comentarios postados no YouTube ( prometo que volto aqui para traduzi-los)

The Beast Machine?!! Mr. Anil: You can’t use Science – which is owned by the entire Humanity – for propagating yours bias tendency and evil ideology among young non prepared minds! You can’t be a professor of my kids.
Show here and now, over the table, Nature building “beast machines”. Show here and now Nature building any kind of machine. The unique real fact that I know from the purely, real, non-biased Science, when Nature builds complex architectures, and which I can show to you over the table and now, is a video 9 months long about embryology. Can you show another, as when Nature builds atoms, galaxies, etc.? Of course, not.
Is it yours interpretation from the final results of a process of embryology, a beast machine? What is a machine, Mr. Anil? If not an artificial human construction? But you are not talking about humans constructions in this video, you are pretensely talking about Nature’s constructions.
My biased and non-scientific interpretation is that Nature does not build machines, it builds “natural working systems”. Among these systems, one, the stellar systems, were once interpreted by Newtonian mechanics as a machine. Today we know it not works well, there are something else. It was almost corrected by general theory of relativity which grasped something of this some thing else. General relativity is being re-enforced by quantum theory towards to grasping more something that is not mechanic inside natural systems. But it does not works well because quantum level is being biased interpreted by people like you, ideological, that are pushing nature towards the aspect of mechanics at quantum level.
My biased and non-scientific interpretation ( Science does not interprets anything, theories does), is that natural systems are composed by 30% of mechanics – the beast side of systems – 30 % of biology – the angel side of systems – and 40% the results of mixing these two opposites, which I call ” in the process of transformation for transcendence of systems”.
And I require that my kids’ teacher teaching first of all, a class about pure, real, with non-biased interpretations, Science. After this first class, I will permit a class about theories, interpretations, where the teacher will teach the three sides of natural systems. This is for keeping my kids’ opened minds, for them to be motivating to look by themselves what we don’t know yet.
And every time I see someone trying to doctrine people with biased  ideologies using Science ( which I am yours partner and owner too as a citizen) I will refute loud, reporting it. I think you are doing a bad disservice to human species, that you will not succeed towards understanding real brains and consciousness wasting your time and taxpayers money, and you are leading humanity to the horrible destiny as a social machine – the Brave New World under the Big Queen as insect societies did. Shame on you, Mr. Anil. But you are younger, you still have time for correcting and re-hardwiring yours indoctrinated brain and producing something good for human kind: see at my website a non-biased and not scientific interpretation about natural systems – something you never knew or thought about.

xxx

Louis Charles MorelliLouis Charles Morelli – 4/9/2017

The draw about “The Great Chain of Being” is wrong. It begins with a piece of rock and makes a non-real, non-rational spectacular jump towards a plant, which is a very complex system. Following we see a mouse – another system – coming from the system “plant”. And following we see a human – another system – coming from a system “mouse”. How could it be that a system like plant came from a slice of a system – a piece of rock from a planetary system which is piece of a stellar system ?! Of course, it is an infant mistake. But, what the bad results of this mistake? It prejudices our search for the truth, for knowledge. Instead a piece of rock, there must be a planetary system and before it a stellar system and before it an atom system. Always systems down, that’s reality. I did the right thing and that’s why I am discovering biological properties expressed by atoms and galactic systems, as explained at my website. Hiding the priors systems that produced biological systems (aka, life), creates mythology, like the one that biological systems arose by chance – a magical accident. It is same mythology that created magical gods. Creates the mythology called biogenesis. It avoid new minds to see these priors systems looking for the natural forces and elements that contributed and evolved towards biological systems. it is wrong! You can not making comparisons between systems and pieces, slices, of another system. System must be aligned, compared, with systems! Please, correct it or advice people that you are showing the draws of a personal theory. Do not talk in the name of our Sacred Science in this way. it is very bad for our students

Duas diferentes cosmovisões debatem: Quais as diferenças entre o computador hardware/software e o humano corpo/mente?

quinta-feira, abril 6th, 2017

xxxxx

Minha questao postada no Quora e acompanhamento do debate:

https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-computer-software-hardware-and-human-body-mind

What’s the difference between computer software/hardware and human body/mind?

Jonathan DayJonathan Day, 4/6/2017
Ultimately, none.

Alan Turing created an imaginary computer, the Turing Machine, that could perform a few basic functions, moving around a tape or set of tapes. He proved that all systems based on logic MUST be equivalent or inferior to a Turing Machine. No exceptions.

We now know that there are no quantum effects in the brain and that the sorts of quantum effects that you could get in regular cells can all be reduced to systems based on logic.

A human being, therefore, is a highly complex machine (the brain has 85 billion neurons and a neuron can have up to 3,000 synapses, so you’re dealing with 255 trillion connections that can amplify/suppress signals – we’re getting into serious numbers here). A machine so complex that attempting to reproduce it with modern technology would result in a computer around ten blocks square and two or three storeys high.

So, human brains are smaller for now. That’s kinda cheating because it’s not an intrinsic difference, merely a technological one.

Louis Charles MorelliLouis Charles Morelli – 4/6/2017

Very helpful, Jonathan. Thanks. But… I think that with yours world view we will not make progress towards quantum computation and knowledge of human mind and consciousness. Yours perspective is totally mechanistic, based on Physics and Math, as the modern scholar mindset. Maybe you are right, but is is not what my personal research and world view is suggesting.

First of all, Turing did not know what a natural system is. So he did not know the logic running in these systems. If you are interested go to my website to see the formula for all natural systems.

Second there is no quantum effects in the human mind as software because quantum effects are related to an inferior level of organization of matter: it fills the boundary between Newtonian mechanics and biological organization, the frontier between the hard and bone skeleton _ studied by the fields of Physics and Math – and the beginning of the soft meat ( where begins biological organization. The human psyche organization is a superior level).

Third, we can not build a computer reproducing the human brain with this actual technology, neither hundred blocks square: complexity has a limit at any evolutionary lineage. When reaching that limit, occurs an evolutionary jump, a transformation. As happened to human brain, the jump to consciousness. It means that we need to proceed a transformation of our actual technology. Not based on binary digits and so, based on seven variables, like the DNA code. By the way, I think it is good talking between different world views. Thanks.

 

Fluido Cerebroespinal: O Fluido do Circuito da Matrix?! Veja O Vortice…

sábado, janeiro 28th, 2017

xxxx

The Cerebrospinal Fluid and the Appearance of “I Am”, Mauro Zappaterra

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh_mvbAUuCw

Prestar atenção na forma dos ventrículos, do vórtice acima da cabeca…

Ver também o paper provando que o DMT (conhecido como “a molécula do espirito”, o alucinogeno no Santo Daime e plantas), existe na glândula pineal e várias outras partes do corpo levado pelo CSF:

https://www.cottonwoodresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Pineal-DMT.pdf

xxxx

O dia em que descobri que o cérebro está deitado (na horizontal) e nao em pé … Pois estas imagens sugerem como os ventrículos estruturam a fórmula da Matrix/DNA, e aqui a formula está na horizontal. Isto vai modificar toda a orientacao na busca de identificar as partes do sistema.

Human Ventricular system colored and animated.gif

Rotating 3D rendering of the four ventricles and connections. From top to bottom: Blue – Lateral ventricles Cyan – Interventricular foramina (Monro) Yellow – Third ventricle Red – Cerebral aqueduct (Sylvius) Purple – fourth ventricle Green – continuous with the central canal

Rotating 3D rendering of the four ventricles

 

 

Meu comentario postado no Youtube:

Louis Charles Morelli Louis Charles Morelli – 01/28/2017

Dr. Mauro and everybody that is studying the brain and consciousness need to know the universal formula that build all natural systems, because brain is a system and human consciousness is an embryo of ex-machine consciousness, which is also a system. I am telling that because we need to sum our different expertises into this investigation. You can developing your understanding of the CSF when seeing its picture side by side with the formula’s picture. I can’t say more here because I can’t bring on the formula here, which is at my website, http://theuniversalmatrix.com

First of all, the 3rd ventriloque is at the position of F1 (at the formula). The two lateral ventriloques performs the whole sphere. CSF is the flow of information that runs inside the spherical systemic circuit. The branch that leave the sphere for running as spinal cord is due the brain being an opened system ( my formula is draw as the closed system state), so the spinal cord is the extension of the system’s brain for connecting with another system, which is the body, built as an accessory.

We need to identificate which gland and cerebral region represents each systemic function, then, we will have a total understanding of the brain. The vortice above the head is saw by natives of Amazon jungle when drinking the beverage called “Saint Dayme”, a kind of ayahuasca which I think contains DMT. I watched those natives and hypnotizing them to see things that I was looking for. My big surprise is that they described a picture identical to the one described by Asian religions where they talks about kundalini and chakras, but, going further in my questions I found that the picture is anything else than the DNA ( two kundalinis in spiral are the two DNA’s streams and the chakras are the nitrogenous basis. It makes sense: the alucinogenos make our neurons to reveal what is at their nucleus – DNA. Since that the Amazon and Asian natives does not know DNA, they invented this mystical interpretation.

The vortice ( as described in Amazon) is composed by tiny, colored, microscopic flying things that moves around us. When they feel a next brain, they falls towards the cortex, drawing the spiral vortex. They enters inside CSF, they are added to another particles coming from the body and neurons and they are the energy and bits of informations carried by CSF. These particles are equal the draw of some particles described by Physics. I think that they are solar atoms burned at the Sun and sent to the space. They seem as a lizard, having a central body like a line in ice color, which, the formula suggests, is composed by protons and neutrons from the burned atoms. And they have luminous points that seems as legs, but each leg has a different color. These legs are electrons, and the different colors is due photons inside them. The Matrix/DNA formula comes from cosmic radiation and from stars like the sun, fragmented as these photons.These things penetrates our body through the top of the head, by the vortex. In this way, biological systems like human bodies and brains are built by evolution.

We have a problem to solve. The CSF running inside the spinal cord should be two ways, one going down and other going up. Like the trunk of trees. At least, this is what the Matrix/DNA formula is suggesting. But, the information I have is that till now is detected only one flow, going down. Is it right?

Pesquisa:

Cerebralspinal fluid CVS (liquido cefalorraquiano ou Fluido cerebrospinal)

Líquido cefalorraquidiano

 

File:1316 Meningeal LayersN.jpg

O fluido (amarelo) passando pelo cortex e rodeando o cerebro. A divisão longitudinal ‘e o corpus callosun dividindo os hemisférios – fonte: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/1316_Meningeal_LayersN.jpg

xxxxx

DMT

A Guerra Materialista Contra a Auto-consciencia: O Cogumelo que Transformou o Cérebro do Macaco?

quarta-feira, janeiro 18th, 2017

xxxx

Graham Hancock sempre foi um escritor e jornalista famoso, mas agora esta causando polêmica com sua teoria sobre as origens da auto-consciência. Ele esteve no Peru tomando ayuhaska ( Santo Daime?) com xamans, teve suas experiencias alucinógenas e elaborou esta teoria pela qual esta’ militando agora. E’ uma interessante e plausível teoria, mas está sendo combatida pelo pessoal do materialismo ortodoxo que acredita nem existir consciencia, e sim um fenômeno produzido pelo cérebro, por acaso. Porém, eu também estive com xamãs, também observei os efeitos destes alucinógenos nos xamãs, e com minha teoria diferente tenho alguns senões os quais foram publicados no vídeo do Youtube e copiado abaixo:

BANNED TALK Graham Hancock The war Over Consciousness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SinDfRlunQk

Louis Charles Morelli Louis Charles Morelli – jan-01/18/2017

My experiences in Amazon jungle watching shamans drinking the beverage called Saint Daime gave me a different theory. At altered state of mind, he described what was seeing and feeling and I wrote and draw the images. My surprise is that the drawing showed the figures of chakras and kundalini, but it was the same image of DNA. Also, flying colored microscopic lizards were the same diagrams of particles physics, more exactly, photons.

Since that I was investigating the systems that composes the Amazon biosphere and got a constant pattern – which I call Matrix/DNA formula for all natural systems – and the formula lead me to compose different atomic and astronomic theoretical models, I think that the hallucinogenic substance makes the brain revealing to consciousness what is registered at our DNA. But not only the registration of our human DNA, and so, the registration of a universal Matrix/DNA that is 13,8 billion years old.

Why and how native people that never left jungle, the American continent, describes images and histories described by the founders of I Ching which are the same images and history at the Genesis, in the Bible? And all of them, all these images, are just the DNA that are at the center of our neurons? If my theoretical models of atoms and galaxies are the right ones, how those people described those models?

To me the answer is clear: atoms and the Milk Way are our ancestrals same way that are reptiles and mammals, so, they are registered at our memories ( My bet is the junk DNA). The modern materialism is the product of inherited genetics from the system/ancestral surrounding us, which created us, and it is described by Newtonian mechanics: this astronomic system. It is a closed system. The whole biosphere is driving to reproduce biologically our flesh/meat creator. so, the goal is to reduce human kind as a common piece of the final machine ( The Brave New World under the Big Brother which will play the rules of the astronomic system non-conscious identity). That’s why they are trying to eliminate the essence of consciousness.

The problem is that consciousness is coming from beyond and before the formation of this galaxy, it was sleeping at atoms, dreaming at galaxies, began waking up at plants and animals and is now a kind of embryo waken up at human beings. And it is an opened system, then, there is the conflict with our immediate creator. Our flesh meat body is the last generation of a universal systemic hardware while our mind is a universal evolving software.

I spent seven years in Amazon jungle but never smoking or drinking those hallucinogenic because I believe that my mind is the unique thing that I have in fact and I never will permit that nobody with religions and no plants with their temptations get the control of my mind. I knew how to hypnotize the shamans and getting what they was experiencing, or better, I could drive them to see what I want. I think Mr. Hancock did it wrong smoking/drinking drugs and my advise to you is avoiding these strange chemicals. The description of the Eden Paradise, with all its symbols – like Adam and Eve, the serpent, the apple, etc._ is just the exactly description of the galactic anatomy and state of existence. It was/is our creator and ancestral.

So, we know the source that was the foundations of all these bigger religions: our non-biological memories triggered as non-sense flashes by chemical substances. And their wrong interpretations because the authors of the Eden and the chakras and kundalini did not know about DNA. ( if someone wish to know more about my research and theoretical results search ” The Universal Matrix for natural Systems and Life’s Cycles). It is food for thought. Cheers…

xxxx

Segundo comentario:

Louis Charles Morelli – jan-01/19/2017
We need understand the deep roots of this war over consciousness. Who banned Mr. Hancock? My theory is that it comes from the animals instincts we inherited, and these animal instincts comes from this astronomic system that created us, which has the tendency to be closed system. Think about a big predator, to say, lions. They are the strongest, they are the kings, they reached the super-specialized state of existence. So, they are conservator, don’t want any change or perturbation in their territory and over their preys, which are working transforming plants into meat. They would fight any smaller predator (wolves, foxes,etc.) or any preys could bring perturbation due reaching some intelligence or consciousness.
This instinct is in our genetic and are very strong in some individuals, which composes the 1%, or the wrong called high class. Add to them those medium predators that works keeping the preys controlled and the territory safe. There are lots of them at the education system. They do not want any change in the status quo. They has the tendency to be a closed system in itself, the extreme expression of selfishness. They hate the idea that something could came from unknown natural dimensions, like the kings dinosaur hated the meteorite that came from the sky. Then, they want to believe that consciousness is merely a product of the brain, a natural thing that can be controlled.
But… every time that a human embryo reaches 6 or 8 months, consciousness emerges in a new brain. We know that it is not each brain inventing first time in the Universe, this phenomena. Consciousness was there before the fecundation outside the embryo’s little universe, was there at the fecundation moment ( the embryo’s big bang), it was sleeping at the morula phase, the blastula phase, was dreaming at the fetus phase, hidden in the embryos genetics. These non biological ancestrals were systems and systems has an individual identity, which is set of informations from the sum of informations of all parts plus the informations arising by the connections among the parts and interactions with environment. This identity works as software, while the physics structures are the hardware. generations of hardwares goes to garbage but the software survives and keeps evolving. Our mind or consciousness is the state of this universal software just now.
The history of this Universe – 13,8 billion years – is the history of a unique natural system. It was an atom, then, a stellar system, then, a galactic system, later was reproduced as a cell system, today is a brain system, and now it is going to be a consciousness system. It is still an embryo inside humans heads ( and all other possible intelligent life in this universe). To this universal system, 13,8 billion years is what 8 months seems to human beings. Consciousness was sleeping at atoms, dreaming at galaxies, began waking up at plants and animals, and is am embryo beginning to lift up at human beings. An like our history, it was there, at the Big Bang, and before it, as consciousness was here at Earth, inside our species and parents heads, it was inside some ex-machine natural system. The big predators can produce an abortion of this embryo, if the human specie will be extinct before our cosmological adventure. That’s why we need fighting who is fighting consciousness.
Ok, this is my theory – like Mr. Hancock has his one and the materialists has their, a valid one – which is detailed explained at my website, but I don’t believe in it, I am continuing my search and testing my models against real facts, and I could be totally wrong,… but I think it makes more rational sense

O que faz voce,voce?

quinta-feira, janeiro 5th, 2017

xxxx

( Copiar e traduzir este artigo. E’  muito importante sobre o conhecimento e teorias atuais da mente)

What Makes You You?

http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/12/what-makes-you-you.html

What Makes You You?

Ensaio do meu comentário a ser postado:

Congratulations, a collection of theories about the issue. There is another theory suggesting a new idea – the Matrix/DNA Theory. This theory introduces his theoretical model of the link between cosmological and biological evolution. It is the building block of galaxies (showed at my avatar above) which happens to be the same building blocks of DNA ( a lateral pair of nucleotides). The difference is

Bons Comentarios:

Corneliu Coman ·

Hey Tim! I’ve asked myself the same question over and over again, since i’ve put a lot of effort into finding “who I am”. My conclusion was close to the “continuity” (I am who I decide to be-or become).

But there goes another dillema: does any of your neurons think “I’m Tim?” or “I am Tim’s Neuron?” or “I am Neuron #1.002.125 of Tim’s Body”? Probably no (how can we know)?

So imagine Earth (or countries or whatever bigger instance) as “the bigger organism” and YOU as the neuron from the example above. Would your previous arguments still stand? probably yes. cell have atoms, molecules, dna and organelles.

So, would you realize your identity is a part of something, and you are not a stand-alone organism? Or you are stand-alone, but you cannot live isolated, so you are completely dependant to other cells (people).

So, finally, my greatest dillema: why do I see the world through my eyes (my body’s eyes) and not through yours. Or his. Or hers? It doesn’t make sense that I should be confined to myself.
Can it because all of us together are the greatest organism and I am just a cell?
Or are we simpy unable (or unconscious) of our ability to perceive everybody else’s brains?

xxxx

Copia para ser traduzida:

When you say the word “me,” you probably feel pretty clear about what that means. It’s one of the things you’re clearest on in the whole world—something you’ve understood since you were a year old. You might be working on the question, “Who am I?” but what you’re figuring out is the who am part of the question—the part is obvious. It’s just you. Easy.

But when you stop and actually think about it for a minute—about what “me” really boils down to at its core—things start to get pretty weird. Let’s give it a try.

The Body Theory

We’ll start with the first thing most people equate with what a person is—the physical body itself. The Body Theory says that that’s what makes you you. And that would make sense. It doesn’t matter what’s happening in your life—if your body stops working, you die. If Mark goes through something traumatic and his family says, “It really changed him—he’s just not the same person anymore,” they don’t literally mean Mark isn’t the same person—he’s changed, but he’s still Mark, because Mark’s body is Mark, no matter what he’s acting like. Humans believe they’re so much more than a hunk of flesh and bone, but in the end, a physical ant is the ant, a squirrel’s body is the squirrel, and a human is its body. This is the Body Theory—let’s test it:

So what happens when you cut your fingernails? You’re changing your body, severing some of its atoms from the whole. Does that mean you’re not you anymore? Definitely not—you’re still you.

How about if you get a liver transplant? Bigger deal, but definitely still you, right?

What if you get a terrible disease and need to replace your liver, kidney, heart, lungs, blood, and facial tissue with synthetic parts, but after all the surgery, you’re fine and can live your life normally. Would your family say that you had died, because most of your physical body was gone? No, they wouldn’t. You’d still be you. None of that is needed for you to be you.

Well maybe it’s your DNA? Maybe that’s the core thing that makes you you, and none of these organ transplants matter because your remaining cells all still contain your DNA, and they’re what maintains “you.” One major problem—identical twins have identical DNA, and they’re not the same person. You are you, and your identical twin is most certainly not you. DNA isn’t the answer.

So far, the Body Theory isn’t looking too good. We keep changing major parts of the body, and you keep being you.

But how about your brain?

The Brain Theory

Let’s say a mad scientist captures both you and Bill Clinton and locks the two of you up in a room.

CH

The scientist then performs an operation on both of you, whereby he safely removes each of your brains and switches them into the other’s head. Then he seals up your skulls and wakes you both up. You look down and you’re in a totally different body—Bill Clinton’s body. And across the room, you see your body—with Bill Clinton’s personality.

CFO

Now, are you still you? Well, my intuition says that you’re you—you still have your exact personality and all your memories—you’re just in Bill Clinton’s body now. You’d go find your family to explain what happened:

CF1

CF2

So unlike your other organs, which could be transplanted without changing your identity, when you swapped brains, it wasn’t a brain transplant—it was a body transplant. You’d still feel like you, just with a different body. Meanwhile, your old body would not be you—it would be Bill Clinton. So what makes you you must be your brain. The Brain Theory says that wherever the brain goes, you go—even if it goes into someone else’s skull.

The Data Theory

Consider this—

What if the mad scientist, after capturing you and Bill Clinton, instead of swapping your physical brains, just hooks up a computer to each of your brains, copies every single bit of data in each one, then wipes both of your brains completely clean, and then copies each of your brain data onto the other person’s physical brain? So you both wake up, both with your own physical brains in your head, but you’re not in your body—you’re in Bill Clinton’s body. After all, Bill Clinton’s brain now has all of your thoughts, memories, fears, hopes, dreams, emotions, and personality. The body and brain of Bill Clinton would still run out and go freak out about this to your family. And again, after a significant amount of convincing, they would indeed accept that you were alive, just in Bill Clinton’s body.

Philosopher John Locke’s memory theory of personal identity suggests that what makes you you is your memory of your experiences. Under Locke’s definition of you, the new Bill Clinton in this latest example is you, despite not containing any part of your physical body, not even your brain. 

This suggests a new theory we’ll call The Data Theory, which says that you’re not your physical body at all. Maybe what makes you you is your brain’s data—your memories and your personality.

We seem to be honing in on something, but the best way to get to concrete answers is by testing these theories in hypothetical scenarios. Here’s an interesting one, conceived by British philosopher Bernard Williams:

The Torture Test

Situation 1: The mad scientist kidnaps you and Clinton, switches your brain data with Clinton’s, as in the latest example, wakes you both up, and then walks over to the body of Clinton, where you supposedly reside, and says, “I’m now going to horribly torture one of you—which one should I torture?”

What’s your instinct? Mine is to point at my old body, where I no longer reside, and say, “Him.” And if I believe in the Data Theory, then I’ve made a good choice. My brain data is in Clinton’s body, so I’m now in Clinton’s body, so who cares about my body anymore? Sure, it sucks for anyone to be tortured, but if it’s between me and Bill Clinton, I’m choosing him.

Situation 2: The mad scientist captures you and Clinton, except he doesn’t do anything to your brains yet. He comes over to you—normal you with your normal brain and body—and asks you a series of questions. Here’s how I think it would play out:

Mad Scientist: Okay so here’s what’s happening. I’m gonna torture one of you. Who should I torture?

You: [pointing at Clinton] Him.

MS: Okay but there’s something else—before I torture whoever I torture, I’m going to wipe both of your brains of all memories, so when the torture is happening, neither of you will remember who you were before this. Does that change your choice?

You: Nope. Torture him.

MS: One more thing—before the torture happens, not only am I going to wipe your brains clean, I’m going to build new circuitry into your brain that will convince you that you’re Bill Clinton. By the time I’m done, you’ll think you’re Bill Clinton and you’ll have all of his memories and his full personality and anything else that he thinks or feels or knows. I’ll do the same thing to him, convincing him he’s you. Does that change your choice?

You: Um, no. Regardless of any delusion I’m going through and no matter who I think I am, I don’t want to go through the horrible pain of being tortured. Insane people still feel pain. Torture him.

So in the first situation, I think you’d choose to have your own body tortured. But in the second, I think you’d choose Bill Clinton’s body—at least I would. But the thing is—they’re the exact same example. In both cases, before any torture happens, Clinton’s brain ends up with all of your data and your brain has his—the difference is just at which point in the process you were asked to decide. In both cases, your goal is for you to not be tortured, but in the first situation, you felt that after the brain data swap, you were in Clinton’s body, with all of your personality and memories there with you—while in the second situation, if you’re like me, you didn’t care what was going to happen with the two brains’ data, you believed that you would remain with your physical brain, and body, either way.

Choosing your body to be the one tortured in the first situation is an argument for the Data Theory—you believe that where your data goes, you go. Choosing Clinton’s body to be tortured in the second situation is an argument for the Brain Theory, because you believe that regardless of what he does with your brain’s data, you will continue to be in your own body, because that’s where your physical brain is. Some might even take it a step further, and if the mad scientist told you he was even going to switch your physical brains, you’d still choose Clinton’s body, with your brain in it, to be tortured. Those that would torture a body with their own brain in it over torturing their own body believe in the Body Theory.

Not sure about you, but I’m finishing this experiment still divided. Let’s try another. Here’s my version of modern philosopher Derek Parfit’s teletransporter thought experiment, which he first described in his book Reasons and Persons

The Teletransporter Thought Experiment

It’s the year 2700. The human race has invented all kinds of technology unimaginable in  today’s world. One of these technologies is teleportation—the ability to transport yourself to distant places at the speed of light. Here’s how it works—

You go into a Departure Chamber—a little room the size of a small cubicle.

cube stand

You set your location—let’s say you’re in Boston and your destination is London—and when you’re ready to go, you press the button on the wall. The chamber walls then scan your entire body, uploading the exact molecular makeup of your body—every atom that makes up every part of you and its precise location—and as it scans, it destroys, so every cell in your body is destroyed by the scanner as it goes.

cube beam

When it’s finished (the Departure Chamber is now empty after destroying all of your cells), it beams your body’s information to an Arrival Chamber in London, which has all the necessary atoms waiting there ready to go. The Arrival Chamber uses the data to re-form your entire body with its storage of atoms, and when it’s finished you walk out of the chamber in London looking and feeling exactly how you did back in Boston—you’re in the same mood, you’re hungry just like you were before, you even have the same paper cut on your thumb you got that morning.

The whole process, from the time you hit the button in the Departure Chamber to when you walk out of the Arrival Chamber in London, takes five minutes—but to you it feels instantaneous. You hit the button, things go black for a blink, and now you’re standing in London. Cool, right?

In 2700, this is common technology. Everyone you know travels by teleportation. In addition to the convenience of speed, it’s incredibly safe—no one has ever gotten hurt doing it.

But then one day, you head into the Departure Chamber in Boston for your normal morning commute to your job in London, you press the big button on the wall, and you hear the scanner turn on, but it doesn’t work.

cubicle broken

The normal split-second blackout never happens, and when you walk out of the chamber, sure enough, you’re still in Boston. You head to the check-in counter and tell the woman working there that the Departure Chamber is broken, and you ask her if there’s another one you can use, since you have an early meeting and don’t want to be late.

She looks down at her records and says, “Hm—it looks like the scanner worked and collected its data just fine, but the cell destroyer that usually works in conjunction with the scanner has malfunctioned.”

“No,” you explain, “it couldn’t have worked, because I’m still here. And I’m late for this meeting—can you please set me up with a new Departure Chamber?”

She pulls up a video screen and says, “No, it did work—see? There you are in London—it looks like you’re gonna be right on time for your meeting.” She shows you the screen, and you see yourself walking on the street in London.

“But that can’t be me,” you say, “because I’m still here.”

At that point, her supervisor comes into the room and explains that she’s correct—the scanner worked as normal and you’re in London as planned. The only thing that didn’t work was the cell destroyer in the Departure Chamber here in Boston. “It’s not a problem, though,” he tells you, “we can just set you up in another chamber and activate its cell destroyer and finish the job.”

And even though this isn’t anything that wasn’t going to happen before—in fact, you have your cells destroyed twice every day—suddenly, you’re horrified at the prospect.

“Wait—no—I don’t want to do that—I’ll die.”

The supervisor explains, “You won’t die sir. You just saw yourself in London—you’re alive and well.”

“But that’s not me. That’s a replica of me—an imposterI’m the real me—you can’t destroy my cells!”

The supervisor and the woman glance awkwardly at each other. “I’m really sorry sir—but we’re obligated by law to destroy your cells. We’re not allowed to form the body of a person in an Arrival Chamber without destroying the body’s cells in a Departure Chamber.”

You stare at them in disbelief and then run for the door. Two security guards come out and grab you. They drag you toward a chamber that will destroy your cells, as you kick and scream…

__________

If you’re like me, in the first part of that story, you were pretty into the idea of teletransportation, and by the end, you were not.

The question the story poses is, “Is teletransportation, as described in this experiment, a form of traveling? Or a form of dying?

This question might have been ambiguous when I first described it—it might have even felt like a perfectly safe way of traveling—but by the end, it felt much more like a form of dying. Which means that every day when you commute to work from Boston to London, you’re killed by the cell destroyer, and a replica of you is created.1 To the people who know you, you survive teletransportation just fine, the same way your wife seems just fine when she arrives home to you after her own teletransportation, talking about her day and discussing plans for next week. But is it possible that your wife was actually killed that day, and the person you’re kissing now was just created a few minutes ago?

Well again, it depends on what you are. Someone who believes in the Data Theory would posit that London you is you as much as Boston you, and that teletransportation is perfectly survivable. But we all related to Boston you’s terror at the end there—could anyone really believe that he should be fine with being obliterated just because his data is safe and alive over in London? Further, if the teletransporter could beam your data to London for reassembly, couldn’t it also beam it to 50 other cities and create 50 new versions of you? You’d be hard-pressed to argue that those were all you. To me, the teletransporter experiment is a big strike against the Data Theory.

Similarly, if there were an Ego Theory that suggests that you are simply your ego, the teletransporter does away nicely with that. Thinking about London Tim, I realize that “Tim Urban” surviving means nothing to me. The fact that my replica in London will stay friends with my friends, keep Wait But Why going with his Tuesday-ish posts, and live out the whole life I was planning for myself—the fact that no one will miss me or even realize that I’m dead, the same way in the story you never felt like you lost your wife—does almost nothing for me. I don’t care about Tim Urban surviving. I care about me surviving.

All of this seems like very good news for Body Theory and Brain Theory. But let’s not judge things yet. Here’s another experiment:

The Split Brain Experiment

A cool fact about the human brain is that the left and right hemispheres function as their own little worlds, each with their own things to worry about, but if you remove one half of someone’s brain, they can sometimes not only survive, but their remaining brain half can learn to do many of the other half’s previous jobs, allowing the person to live a normal life. That’s right—you could lose half of your brain and potentially function normally.

So say you have an identical twin sibling named Bob who developes a fatal brain defect. You decide to save him by giving him half of your brain. Doctors operate on both of you, discarding his brain and replacing it with half of yours. When you wake up, you feel normal and like yourself. Your twin (who already has your identical DNA because you’re twins) wakes up with your exact personality and memories.

twins

When you realize this, you panic for a minute that your twin now knows all of your innermost thoughts and feelings on absolutely everything, and you’re about to make him promise not to tell anyone, when it hits you that you of course don’t have to tell him. He’s not your twin—he’s you. He’s just as intent on your privacy as you are, because it’s his privacy too.

As you look over at the guy who used to be Bob and watch him freak out that he’s in Bob’s body now instead of his own, you wonder, “Why did I stay in my body and not wake up in Bob’s? Both brain halves are me, so why am I distinctly in my body and not seeing and thinking in dual split-screen right now, from both of our points of view? And whatever part of me is in Bob’s head, why did I lose touch with it? Who is the me in Bob’s head, and how did he end up over there while I stayed here?”

Brain Theory is shitting his pants right now—it makes no sense. If people are supposed to go wherever their brains go, what happens when a brain is in two places at once? Data Theory, who was badly embarrassed by the teletransporter experiment, is doing no better in this one.

But Body Theory—who was shot down at the very beginning of the post—is suddenly all smug and thrilled with himself. Body Theory says “Of course you woke up in your own body—your body is what makes you you. Your brain is just the tool your body uses to think. Bob isn’t you—he’s Bob. He’s just now a Bob who has your thoughts and personality. There’s nothing Bob’s body can ever do to not be Bob.” This would help explain why you stayed in your body.

So a nice boost for Body Theory, but let’s take a look at a couple more things—

What we learned in the teletransporter experiment is that if your brain data is transferred to someone else’s brain, even if that person is molecularly identical to you, all it does is create a replica of you—a total stranger who happens to be just like you. There’s something distinct about Boston you that was important. When you were recreated out of different atoms in London, something critical was lost—something that made you you.

Body Theory (and Brain Theory) would point out that the only difference between Boston you and London you was that London you was made out of different atoms. London you’s body was like your body, but it was still made of different material. So is that it? Could Body Theory explain this too?

Let’s put it through two tests:

The Cell Replacement Test

Imagine I replace a cell in your arm with an identical, but foreign, replica cell. Are you not you anymore? Of course you are. But how about if, one at a time, I replace 1% of your cells with replicas? How about 10%? 30%? 60%? The London you was composed of 100% replacement cells, and we decided that that was not you—so when does the “crossover” happen? How many of your cells do we need to swap out for replicas before you “die” and what’s remaining becomes your replica?

Something feels off with this, right? Considering that the cells we’re replacing are molecularly identical to those we’re removing, and someone watching this all happen wouldn’t even notice anything change about you, it seem implausible that you’d ever die during this process, even if we eventually replaced 100% of your cells with replicas. But if your cells are eventually all replicas, how are you any different from London you?

The Body Scattering Test 

Imagine going into an Atom Scattering Chamber that completely disassembles your body’s atoms so that all that’s left in the room is a light gas of floating atoms—and then a few minutes later, it perfectly reassembles the atoms into you, and you walk out feeling totally normal.

disassemble

Is that still you? Or did you die when you were disassembled and what has been reassembled is a replica of you? It doesn’t really make sense that this reassembled you would be the real you and London you would be a replica, when the only difference between the two cases is that the scattering room preserves your exact atoms and the London chamber assembles you out of different atoms. At their most basic level, atoms are identical—a hydrogen atom from your body is identical in every way to a hydrogen atom in London. Given that, I’d say that if we’re deciding London you is not you, then reassembled you is probably not you either.

The first thing these two tests illustrate is that the key distinction between Boston you and London you isn’t about the presence or absence of your actual, physical cells. The Cell Replacement Test suggests that you can gradually replace much or all of your body with replica material and still be you, and the Body Scattering Test suggests that you can go through a scatter and a reassembly, even with all of your original physical material, and be no more you than the you in London. Not looking great for Body Theory anymore.

The second thing these tests reveal is that the difference between Boston and London you might not be the nature of the particular atoms or cells involved, but about continuity. The Cell Replacement Test might have left you intact because it changed you gradually, one cell at a time. And if the Body Scattering Test were the end of you, maybe it’s because it happened all at the same time, breaking the continuity of you. This could also explain why the teletransporter might be a murder machine—London you has no continuity with your previous life.

So could it be that we’ve been off the whole time pitting the brain, the body, and the personality and memories against each other? Could it be that anytime you relocate your brain, or disassemble your atoms all at once, transfer your brain data onto a new brain, etc., you lose you because maybe, you’re not defined by any of these things on their own, but rather by a long and unbroken string of continuous existence?

Continuity

A few years ago, my late grandfather, in his 90s and suffering from dementia, pointed at a picture on the wall of himself as a six-year-old. “That’s me!” he explained.

He was right. But come on. It seems ridiculous that the six-year-old in the picture and the extremely old man standing next to me could be the same person. Those two people had nothing in common. Physically, they were vastly different—almost every cell in the six-year-old’s body died decades ago. As far as their personalities—we can agree that they wouldn’t have been friends. And they shared almost no common brain data at all. Any 90-year-old man on the street is much more similar to my grandfather than that six-year-old.

But remember—maybe it’s not about similarity, but about continuity. If similarity were enough to define you, Boston you and London you, who are identical, would be the same person. The thing that my grandfather shared with the six-year-old in the picture is something he shared with no one else on Earth—they were connected to each other by a long, unbroken string of continuous existence. As an old man, he may not know anything about that six-year-old boy, but he knows something about himself as an 89-year-old, and that 89-year-old might know a bunch about himself as an 85-year-old. As a 50-year-old, he knew a ton about him as a 43-year-old, and when he was seven, he was a pro on himself as a 6-year-old. It’s a long chain of overlapping memories, personality traits, and physical characteristics.

It’s like having an old wooden boat. You may have repaired it hundreds of times over the years, replacing wood chip after wood chip, until one day, you realize that not one piece of material from the original boat is still part of it. So is that still your boat? If you named your boat Polly the day you bought it, would you change the name now? It would still be Polly, right?

In this way, what you are is not really a thing as much as a story, or a progression, or one particular theme of person. You’re a bit like a room with a bunch of things in it—some old, some new, some you’re aware of, some you aren’t—but the room is always changing, never exactly the same from week to week.

Likewise, you’re not a set of brain data, you’re a particular database whose contents are constantly changing, growing, and being updated. And you’re not a physical body of atoms, you’re a set of instructions on how to deal with and organize the atoms that bump into you.

People always say the word soul and I never really know what they’re talking about. To me, the word soul has always seemed like a poetic euphemism for a part of the brain that feels very inner to us; or an attempt to give humans more dignity than just being primal biological organisms; or a way to declare that we’re eternal. But maybe when people say the word soul what they’re talking about is whatever it is that connects my 90-year-old grandfather to the boy in the picture. As his cells and memories come and go, as every wood chip in his canoe changes again and again, maybe the single common thread that ties it all together is his soul. After examining a human from every physical and mental angle throughout the post, maybe the answer this whole time has been the much less tangible Soul Theory.

______

It would have been pleasant to end the post there, but I just can’t do it, because I can’t quite believe in souls.

The way I actually feel right now is completely off-balance. Spending a week thinking about clones of yourself, imagining sharing your brain or merging yours with someone else’s, and wondering whether you secretly die every time you sleep and wake up as a replica will do that to you. If you’re looking for a satisfying conclusion, I’ll direct you to the sources below since I don’t even know who I am right now.

The only thing I’ll say is that I told someone about the topic I was posting on for this week, and their question was, “That’s cool, but what’s the point of trying to figure this out?” While researching, I came across this quote by Parfit: “The early Buddhist view is that much or most of the misery of human life resulted from the false view of self.” I think that’s probably very true, and that’s the point of thinking about this topic.

___________

Related Wait But Why Posts
– Here’s how I’m working on this false view of self thing.
– And things could get even more confusing soon when we have to figure out if Artificial Superintelligence is conscious or not.

Sources
Very few of the ideas or thought experiments in this post are my original thinking. I read and listened to a bunch of personal identity philosophy this week and gathered my favorite parts together for the post. The two sources I drew from the most were philosopher Derek Parfit’s book Reasons and Persons and Yale professor Shelly Kagan’s fascinating philosophy course on death—the lectures are all watchable online for free.

Other Sources:
David Hume: Hume on Identity Over Time and Persons
Derek Parfit: We Are Not Human Beings
Peter Van Inwagen: Materialism and the Psychological-Continuity Account of Personal Identity
Bernard Williams: The Self and the Future
John Locke: An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (Chapter: Of Identity and Diversity)
Douglas Hofstadter: Gödel, Escher, Bach
Patrick Bailey: Concerning Theories of Personal Identity

And a fascinating and related video
For a while now, my favorite YouTube channel has been Kurzgesagt. They make one amazing five-minute animated video a month on the exact kinds of topics I love to write about. I highly recommend subscribing. Anyway, I’ve spoken to them and we liked the idea of tag-teaming a similar topic at the same time, and since this one was on both of our lists, we did that this week. I focused on what the self is, they explored what life itself is. Check it out: