Waht are thoughts made of?Follow

http://superstringtheory.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html]


Above is the first three links when typing a google search on string theory, or did you attempt some other database search and come up with nothing?

As for explaining string theory, i really dont have a few days to type, so please see the links above, or start studying now. If you really apply yourself, in about ten years youll probably be able to really understand a good paper on string theory. This is not a cocky attempt to sound intelligent, its just the math behind some of the core principles is rather tedious unfortunately. The links above should give you a basic understanding of one of the leading theories as to interdimensional physics and what MAY have happened before the Big Bang. As stated before, i have no idea if this is true or what actually happened, i was just annoyed at cwill's statement that science had no explanation for as to the happenings before the big bang and we should all just surrunder ourselves to the fact that the flying spaghetti monster did it.

Clearly, your perspective is mostly concerned with the brain and it's components, which is a great thing to be concerned with. But it's equally clear that your interpretation of neural events in the greater psychological context is in the language of cognitive psychology -- the idea that the neural structure somehow "maps" onto some sort of cognitive structure. I see this when you use the input-ouput metaphor and the terms "intelligence," "mind," and "memories." These are things. They are nouns. But what are "they?" Certainly not neural structure, as you already have names for those things.

This has been the errant pattern of psychology for many decades, mostly because it's inherent in our language that the wold is "made up of" nouns, so it's natural for us to always look for "things." But when it comes to psychological phenomena, I think it's much more useful to focus on the "action" part of the agent-action relationship. The right question isn't "what is a mind?" or "what is a thought?" We'll never find "it" except at the neural level. At the psychological level the right question is "what do we do when we speak covertly to ourselves, and how did we learn to do it?" or "what do we do when we think?"

To me, "the linear intellectual development from a mindless **** machine to a quantum physicist" is not very far removed from "the linear athletic development from spastic **** machine to a gold-medal winning gymnast." It is a progression of complexity -- learning -- from virtually nothing to something "great." In one case it's athletic achievement, in the other case it's language achievement -- a complexity of verbal behavior.

If I want to understand how the gymnast does her thing, I wouldn't start by making up metaphorical parallel-bar structures based on her skeleto-muscular composition. I also wouldn't ponder whether her inner skills are tapped into the quantum consciousness of the universe. I'd look at what she does and how she learned to do it. I'd do the same type of thing if I wanted to understand how the quantum physicist does his thing.

This is one of my personal "ultimate questions"; whether or not existance is a Cycle(Circle), or whether or not there actually is an ultimate End (Nirvana).

I suspect that some part of me knows...


The "Timeless" thing DOES make things confusing does it not.. for we are forced to think of things on a linear way.

But Google up the "EPR" paradox... this does show that on that smallest level... time and distance has no meaning.

Then question then becomes: How does that apply to our world and our consiousness? I believe THAT is the Key.

Wow that was some good post there. I have yet to go and check those links out but I will after the holidays EP and Yoss.

One thing though, do you think the **** machine's to the physicist or to the gymnast is not reachable by all **** machines? There are physical as well as mental and emotional hurdles that not everyone can jump no matter how hard they train or study I think. So that short step in between the two could be like the Grand Canyon or the trip to Mars for some.

Scientist, like you guys, need great brain capacity and memory to retrieve data for comparison and research and definately passion for the subject matter.

Athletes need great muscle mass or density, depending, to achieve their goals and definately passion for the subjected sport.

Theologians need a great strenght in faith for the unknown and unproven and definately a passion for the uncomprehensible.

So I guess to be great in something, the one thing we all would share is a great passion for what we believe in, science, athletics or Theology. Thats what makes humanity so great. Passion.

Have a great day all.