GENIUS FORUMS

Geniuses are born as old men in a babys body. We are of a dark nature. Sentience, consciousness, call it what you will. I remember my most painful memory, which shall not be repeated here.

Thanks Dan Rowden, Animus, Anders Schlander, Pincho Paxton and Yana for your thought-out answers which gives me something to think about.

If there is anything I like to read or discuss in my own logical way, it is consciousness the most. I cannot see how the sperm and egg are not conscious of their roles to produce humanity. Is humanity not meant to be? Are we accidents, I don't believe so. Highly educated people are looking for something more complex than it really is. Logic tells me we either created ourselves or something greater than ourselves created us. Proof of humanities existence lies within the sperm and egg connecting creating dual consciousnessess. But, who was the first man or woman created? Who is God? Did he/she create man or woman from itself? Were we created from the intelligence of the earth and light?

The whole universe is seemingly created through divine intervention. Everything works together in unison. Our eyes alone are awesome wonders, and just to open our mouths to breath in life is wonderous.

We have nothing but the Bible to go on, and who wrote the Bible but mere men with divine revelations. Answers will be revealed for all to see in the coming of Christ!

mensa-maniac wrote:We have nothing but the Bible to go on

Then I guess we have nothing to go on.

Man can work out where he came from, but the mystery to me is why was it kept from him in the first place?

My theory...


The knowledge of Neutrons is only the beginning, and look what we did with that knowledge. So best not to let us know too much. Knowing where you came from is the same as knowing how to destroy where you came from.

Pincho Paxton wrote:Man can work out where he came from, but the mystery to me is why was it kept from him in the first place?

Maybe it was kept from man because once the Alien/s created us, they didn't know how to prolong us for more than a lifetime of 100 years. In other words perhaps when we die nothing happens afterward, we just die and that's it we're gone forever! The Alien/s don't know how to bring us back to life...or maybe they do! Mensa-Maniac

My theory...


The knowledge of Neutrons is only the beginning, and look what we did with that knowledge. So best not to let us know too much. Knowing where you came from is the same as knowing how to destroy where you came from.

These words ring truth loud and clear!

mensa-maniac wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:Man can work out where he came from, but the mystery to me is why was it kept from him in the first place?

Maybe it was kept from man because once the Alien/s created us, they didn't know how to prolong us for more than a lifetime of 100 years. In other words perhaps when we die nothing happens afterward, we just die and that's it we're gone forever! The Alien/s don't know how to bring us back to life...or maybe they do! Mensa-Maniac

My theory...


The knowledge of Neutrons is only the beginning, and look what we did with that knowledge. So best not to let us know too much. Knowing where you came from is the same as knowing how to destroy where you came from.

These words ring truth loud and clear!

What Aliens? Why do so many people need a creator? It doesn't help, you then need to create the creator, which is a waste of time.

"What Aliens, why do so many people need a creator..."

Are you closed minded Pincho or better yet, please oblige me/readers with what you believe in or know... Seriously, with no intimidation or patronizing intended, I would like to know what you believe in.

We all need something to believe in, certainly you realize this. I've personally believed all my life in a spirit greater than myself, the one called God who I believed created me, now I believe I'm that greater spirit, or part of it. I believe I created myself from something greater than myself. I believe I can 'Will' myself to death if I so choose.

I created myself from something which couldn't be whole without me, and I without it, together we became a whole, creating a Yin Yang effect, a he/she consciousness, we multiplied ourselves.

mensa-maniac wrote:"What Aliens, why do so many people need a creator..."

Are you closed minded Pincho or better yet, please oblige me/readers with what you believe in or know... Seriously, with no intimidation or patronizing intended, I would like to know what you believe in.

We all need something to believe in, certainly you realize this. I've personally believed all my life in a spirit greater than myself, the one called God who I believed created me, now I believe I'm that greater spirit, or part of it. I believe I created myself from something greater than myself. I believe I can 'Will' myself to death if I so choose.

I created myself from something which couldn't be whole without me, and I without it, together we became a whole, creating a Yin Yang effect, a he/she consciousness, we multiplied ourselves.

I believe in my eyes combined with my mental dissection of what they tell me. I can see what created me. It's not invisible completely, and it's not 2000 years lost in the past. It's right here, and right now... it just looks a bit older... The Sun, The Aether, and few Black Holes.

Pincho Paxton wrote:Man can work out where he came from, but the mystery to me is why was it kept from him in the first place?

My theory...


The knowledge of Neutrons is only the beginning, and look what we did with that knowledge. So best not to let us know too much. Knowing where you came from is the same as knowing how to destroy where you came from.

If we were to know everything we'd be something like Laplace's Demon trapped in an infinite cognitive regress.

Our brains would be infinitely large and would consume infinite energy.

On evolutionary grounds, it doesn't aid survival to have too much introspective awareness. It is enough to have a fuzzy idea about who we are. The condition of "mineness" of owning a part of mental "space" is sufficient to create the illusion that everything is known about one's self. The brain may create adequate representations for survival, but then it just glosses over the inaccuracies and additional depth. Introspecting on the representational process is way too expensive in terms of energy (sugar/glucose). Its more effective to just go with the self-representation and give it a quality of "mineness" that is immutable. Its the same as color, we know color is not what photons "objectively" look like, we know that colour is a conscious representation, but we can't introspect on the process.

Or maybe we can if we rewire our brains in a certain fashion, but I doubt it, I think that would result in the demon scenario.

mensa-maniac wrote:"What Aliens, why do so many people need a creator..."

Are you closed minded Pincho or better yet, please oblige me/readers with what you believe in or know... Seriously, with no intimidation or patronizing intended, I would like to know what you believe in.

We all need something to believe in, certainly you realize this. I've personally believed all my life in a spirit greater than myself, the one called God who I believed created me, now I believe I'm that greater spirit, or part of it. I believe I created myself from something greater than myself. I believe I can 'Will' myself to death if I so choose.

I created myself from something which couldn't be whole without me, and I without it, together we became a whole, creating a Yin Yang effect, a he/she consciousness, we multiplied ourselves.

If I believe in Truth does that make me a knower?

I believe that Truth is obvious but no one cares about it until it interferes with their plans.

Animus wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:Man can work out where he came from, but the mystery to me is why was it kept from him in the first place?

My theory...


The knowledge of Neutrons is only the beginning, and look what we did with that knowledge. So best not to let us know too much. Knowing where you came from is the same as knowing how to destroy where you came from.

If we were to know everything we'd be something like Laplace's Demon trapped in an infinite cognitive regress.

Our brains would be infinitely large and would consume infinite energy.

On evolutionary grounds, it doesn't aid survival to have too much introspective awareness. It is enough to have a fuzzy idea about who we are. The condition of "mineness" of owning a part of mental "space" is sufficient to create the illusion that everything is known about one's self. The brain may create adequate representations for survival, but then it just glosses over the inaccuracies and additional depth. Introspecting on the representational process is way too expensive in terms of energy (sugar/glucose). Its more effective to just go with the self-representation and give it a quality of "mineness" that is immutable. Its the same as color, we know color is not what photons "objectively" look like, we know that colour is a conscious representation, but we can't introspect on the process.

Or maybe we can if we rewire our brains in a certain fashion, but I doubt it, I think that would result in the demon scenario.

I already know everything, I was just asking why it was kept from US (in general), really meaning everyone else.

0-0

In theory,,,

paco wrote:In theory,,,

Yeah.. the theory of everything. I think I will soon be on the news... not sure. I know that I have solved it though.

Pincho Paxton wrote:

Animus wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:Man can work out where he came from, but the mystery to me is why was it kept from him in the first place?

My theory...


The knowledge of Neutrons is only the beginning, and look what we did with that knowledge. So best not to let us know too much. Knowing where you came from is the same as knowing how to destroy where you came from.

If we were to know everything we'd be something like Laplace's Demon trapped in an infinite cognitive regress.

Our brains would be infinitely large and would consume infinite energy.

On evolutionary grounds, it doesn't aid survival to have too much introspective awareness. It is enough to have a fuzzy idea about who we are. The condition of "mineness" of owning a part of mental "space" is sufficient to create the illusion that everything is known about one's self. The brain may create adequate representations for survival, but then it just glosses over the inaccuracies and additional depth. Introspecting on the representational process is way too expensive in terms of energy (sugar/glucose). Its more effective to just go with the self-representation and give it a quality of "mineness" that is immutable. Its the same as color, we know color is not what photons "objectively" look like, we know that colour is a conscious representation, but we can't introspect on the process.

Or maybe we can if we rewire our brains in a certain fashion, but I doubt it, I think that would result in the demon scenario.

I already know everything, I was just asking why it was kept from US (in general), really meaning everyone else.

That's what I was attempting to explain. It was kept from us because we couldn't see it. I still don't see it. You say you know something but I'm not even sure what it is, something about octagons. I'm not so good at the physics and I don't really understand the purpose of the octagons. They are to explain gravity or something. How does this relate to consciousness theory? How do octagons apply to consciousness?

I spend a lot of time reading neuroscience. You know disorders of self-model, perception disorders like phantom limb, intermetamorphisis, Cotard's syndrome, alien hand syndrome, echopraxia, akinetic mutism, abulia, Anton's syndrome, hemineglect, split-brain, achromatopsia, anosagnosia, and so on and so forth. I've found that these conditions correlate well with brain physiology and that neuroscience is a useful physical description of conscious phenomena. How does octagon theory explain these deviant states of consciousness as well as the normal state? Does octagon theory more accurately describe conscious phenomena and how so? When a person takes a tamping iron through the frontal lobe and their personality changes instantaneously how does octagon theory account for that?

If it is the theory of everything and you do indeed know everything then this should be a small order. ;)

Animus wrote:
That's what I was attempting to explain. It was kept from us because we couldn't see it. I still don't see it. You say you know something but I'm not even sure what it is, something about octagons. I'm not so good at the physics and I don't really understand the purpose of the octagons. They are to explain gravity or something. How does this relate to consciousness theory? How do octagons apply to consciousness?

I spend a lot of time reading neuroscience. You know disorders of self-model, perception disorders like phantom limb, intermetamorphisis, Cotard's syndrome, alien hand syndrome, echopraxia, akinetic mutism, abulia, Anton's syndrome, hemineglect, split-brain, achromatopsia, anosagnosia, and so on and so forth. I've found that these conditions correlate well with brain physiology and that neuroscience is a useful physical description of conscious phenomena. How does octagon theory explain these deviant states of consciousness as well as the normal state? Does octagon theory more accurately describe conscious phenomena and how so? When a person takes a tamping iron through the frontal lobe and their personality changes instantaneously how does octagon theory account for that?

If it is the theory of everything and you do indeed know everything then this should be a small order. ;)

Correction...Hexagon theory, mainly because of the alignment of atoms.

You know what puzzles people the most.. how we move electrons around. I have figured out how photons are moved around, and that we actually play a part in where they move to. We pinch an invisible line between us, and the photons. This pinch makes it easier for the photons to head where we are looking.

Apply this pinch to where we want a thought to move to. Now it's not so easy to compare. We use our eyes to pinch the field of view. That's physical, and easy to understand.. like a spider twitching its leg on the web.
Looking inwards is the difficult leap. Basically what you need to do is to spin the electrons, like spinning plates on a stick. We have an inner eye to do this, and although that explains the problem, I do not know where the inner eye is located. I haven't really studied the brain. A theory of everything does solve these problems, but one person does not have the time to look at everything. If you want to look for the inner eye, and you think you have found it, let me know. It will be a series of muscle twitches, peppered out, most like our own light sensors, but way more electrically charged. Most likely at the centre of our brain.

Wow.. I've figured it out! I spent about an hour last night looking for the part of the brain that controls the rest of it. There wasn't really anything to find there. So....

I applied Conciousness to my theory, and to many scientific experiments through the ages. The main example that I can think of is that is easy to understand is the Bee Hive. Think of the bees as electrons. The Queen Bee is a leader electron, and that leader electron is not like the other electrons, it contains the conciousness. The sperm has a leader electron in its head. All of these leader electrons are fighting to take over a body. Our body is not us, we are a leader electron controlling the other worker electrons. Maybe by examining the head of a sperm, we can find the different electron in there. That is our soul.

Another experiment that can be used as an example of the electron brain is the two slit experiment. But I am the only person who knows how that works, so you should really wait for my computer simulation to be finished.
This is a whole new world once my theory becomes available.

You still have the homunculus problem in your theory.

There is no soul in the brain. No leader electron. The best your going to find is the corticothalamic complex as the region integrating consciousness with other areas processing discriminatory tasks. For example Cotard's syndrome (belief that one's self does not exist or one is dead) results from highly specific disturbances of the brain. Other deviant states like abulia (loss of will) result from other disturbances in the brain. The self is distributed across brain regions which are themselves aggregates of thousands of nerve cells. The self can be split into functional systems for analysis. There are highly specific deviant states like phantom limbs that alter bodily self-awareness or alien hand syndrome affecting volition.

If there is a "leader electron" there is something about this that is subject to alteration in highly specific ways. Or it serves no purpose and is functionally disconnected from the brain (does not exist).

The brain is only the pathways, it has no meaning, it is not part of us, it is outside of us. We are the electrons, and particles, and we use the brain as roadways. You will not find anything really useful in the brain at all, apart from places to accept the electrons, places for them to gather, and make a pattern.

Like you could say of the world...

Mcdonalds is a part of the brain that increases energy.
Work is the part of the brain that produces materials.
Hollywood is the part of the brain that produces our imagination.

No, they are places to gather to do those things.

Although, logic is my greatest contribution in life, I find you educated guys quite brain stimulating to read, however, I find my own answers to my understanding of your concepts, theories, to be more effective to my own reasoning of the problem, theory etc.

And although logic plays the biggest role in my life, I must admit that much of your educated terminology goes right over my head. But, this doesn't make me part of the mediocre-minded so please refrain from implying so. I am distinguished--set apart from the mediocre-minded. What needs to be understood here is 'educated' doesn't mean more intelligent, it only means more book smarts and brainwashed.

Any pea-brain can make himself appear more educated, but he can't appear intelligent he has to prove that!

Intelligence is ability, education is only book knowledge which circulates the same old stuff throughout the centuries, but intelligence takes it's intuitive knowledge and puts it to work for him!

Many educated persons need to be educated or disciplined about their inflated ego's and insufferable attitudes of a smug sense of superiority, and to think superiority to who? If they were superior to others they would be alien to humanity!

For now, I will just let gravity be a nucleus. I think that the Nucleus is a Black Hole, it would work really well with building a universe from nothing. You can't get less than a hole.

I'm going to say this as a matter of fact. If you think that the brain is unimportant to consciousness or self your are insane.

You can ask me to prove that statement, but you see, you have to prove the statement.

The problem of ego here arises in the unwillingness to make every attempt to study with equanimity all possibilities. Attaching one's self to beliefs is never wise. Personally I am capable discussing in various grammatical settings such as Neurophilosophy, Buddhism or Christianity. These are just different ways of discussing the same phenomena. I have operational attitudes or a running model of reality which is more or less certain. Another way ego manifests in debate is appealing to character, census, tradition, etc... attacking an participants motives. There is a dialectic here because attacking a person's motives can be seen as positive if the "attacker" is trying to enlighten the "victim". But this is a very touchy relation.

For the Christians, what do you think it means Genesis 18:27, James 4:14 and Ecclesiastes 9:5-6? Colossians 2:19? Romans 9? (etc..)

I have personally experienced brain trauma and it becomes apparent that your brain is rather important to your perspective. To say that the brain is not important is to blame everyone who suffered from a stroke or other trauma of making stuff up. Its to contradict the whole notion that decapitation is an effective means of eliminating the life of that perspective (soul or whatever). Whether or not you describe it in terms of "patters of electrons", the specific pattern is a brain. I'm sure you if you could describe consciousness in terms of functional relationships between electrons then you'd be slightly more accurate that describe it on the macroperspect of the brain, but it would take you much longer to work out what was going on. The accuracy would be negligible, ultimately you would need to condense your description into something simplistic and lose all that you acquired in the process. Technologically speaking this would be impossible at current time, there isn't even sufficient ability to calculate Tononi and Edelman's Dynamic Core which is based on brain-perspect causal interactions. You aren't gaining anything with the electron-perspect as regards human consciousness. It doesn't actually get you anywhere, I think that you have no plausible description of how electrons achieve the tapestry of consciousness and you will probably never have one. It's a sideshow, a waste of time, a fantasy. I'm sure there are lots of good reasons to talk about electrons. There isn't really much point when talking about the brain. The brain is electrochemical which is a whole different ball game. I mean, a cell depolarizes at about 55mV and has a resting potential of -70mV. But the synapses are chemical. The computational structure of the brain is in the synaptic relations between cells. A cell receives chemical transmitters which opens certain channels that causes an influx of positively charged ions which causes depolarization of cell at the axon hillock (at approx. 55 mV threshold) and there is a rolling activation across the axon to the axon terminal. At the axon terminal the electrochemical activity opens channels releasing vesicles (packages of transmitter) into the synaptic cleft--the area between the pre-synaptic cell membrane and the post-synaptic cell membrane--where it reacts with the gates on the post-synaptic cell membrane. Basic neuron stuff. When you put a bunch of these together and stimulate them, for example using a cone. A cone is a retinal ganglion cell, a nerve cell in the eye's retina that contains opsin reacting to specific wavelengths of light. When a cones photosensitive chemical reacts it feeds the information into the brain and neurons (color-opponency cells, luminance cells, etc..) discriminate and represent what the eyes see.

You don't need anything to know this stuff, just a reason. You can learn all of this online in an afternoon. I could go into further explanation, but I think you get the point that there is basically no reason for describing consciousness in terms of electrons and that the assertion that the brain is negligible is foolish.

mensa-maniac wrote:Hello Interested Parties

I'm with understanding that Scientists confirm that our consciousness is in our cells. My theory is that consciousness begins with ejaculation of the male sperm into the female body. The strongest and most determined sperm consciously swims its way up to connect with the fertilized egg. Together the dual consciousnessess enmesh into one consciousness creating male and female consciousness, producing an embryo, and than the fetus.

Inside the male testicles sperm swim about, are they alive without consciousness is a question to ponder.

If sperm is without consciousness, than how does sperm intuitively know to do the job it is naturally intended to do?

It would be interesting to know what chemical components create male sperm. Its amazingly divine that a human is created from both sperm and egg combined which together a dual consciousness is created into one consciousness upon conception.

My consciousness reveals to me that my dual consciousnessess of both male and female are consciously aware of each others presence.

Please oblige me with your concept or understanding of consciousness.

Sex would be the current place holder for current method a spieces would use to create more of istelf. ultimatly the driving force behind all humanity waether they want it to be or not. no amount of mental dicapline would ever trounce the affects of sexual interaction on all humans i dont care what their physiological makeup at the time.

however if one person had the ability to overcome this need of thought processes which would be a non human form of sciententness this would happen. unused thought duplicators = brain matter would reoirent themselves to survive. basicly for a being to survive on a planet with no potential mates would have to rethink their purpose and reason.

there is a higher plane of reason that doesnt even include sex in any of its equations simply because it has in a sense become detremental to survival. the constant thought proccesses that are involved in courtship and procreation simply become reorientated for something else like a higher plane of thought. sex is still important but would be the most deffinate and least thought out activity of the spieces simply the complete methodoligy would simply be an outdated model when aplied to current envirnmental conditions.

procreation is important but not neccessary for survival ultimatly its reason and purpose misguided and simply outdated. rethinking your potentiality is the key to survival not your actuality at the time.

i know one thing that there is more comphrehensablity in a simple act of looking at yoruself in the mirror than the entirety of copulationic acts in anything you do.

procreation of ideas is obsolete but not the conception of them it never will be. the conceptionist will always be at a higher level of contentment than the procreationist no matter how many times they have learned something from the procreation. learning from procreation just simply is too slow for true envirnmental perception than conception.

in essence a conceptionist would leave a procreationist in the dust and the sad fact is the dust itself wouldnt even be concievable in the first place.

nothing would be conciveable without being concieved by conception...conception is the mother of all conceptions..
without procreation we wouldn't exist...as nothing exists inherently..everything is dependant on everything...including the non-existence of existence inherently existing conceptually...lol

Kunga wrote: as nothing exists inherently

are you talking about nothing itself not existing inherently or just its distinguisher which would be something. i mean isnt perception inherent itself? why would this not apply to anything else in our envirnment but only certain things. to follow the laws of completion/unification one would have to be inherently able to preicieve it or they would not be able to distinguish anything in their envirnment. in a sense become purposeless and basicly be travleing into oblivion.

the only problem is oblivion doesnt exist in the first place so how would it be priecevable. without a form for existance to latch onto in a sense the form istelf would become undistinguishable from anything else. would basicly become an object of pointless reason this in istelf would prevent it from exististing in the first place.