Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
PsiSeeker

A crazy thought on "after effect"

34 posts in this topic

I feel the the self that we're aware of is an expression of the matter that defines us. That self that we're aware of then exists as potential in the form of brain energy/electricity. Assume that the matter that defines us loses it's ability to produce the potential we're aware of. As the potential we're aware of exists in the form of an inordinate number of electrical impulses at different rates of frequency (which also happens to be massless) then the last tick of time that we'll be aware of will incorporate the rest of available time for matter in the universe.

Mind boggling stuff, thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what you mean.. I hope.. ! The way we feel is not how we present ourselves???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone feels this, but it is hard to describe.. your 'right & wrong' has a lot to do with it..

correct me if I am wrong.. !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to re-clarify the OP. To be honest I feel uncomfortable talking about things like this. I've also come to understand that may way of wording things in my head is pretty bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel the the self that we're aware of is an expression of the matter that defines us. That self that we're aware of then exists as potential in the form of brain energy/electricity. Assume that the matter that defines us loses it's ability to produce the potential we're aware of. As the potential we're aware of exists in the form of an inordinate number of electrical impulses at different rates of frequency (which also happens to be massless) then the last tick of time that we'll be aware of will incorporate the rest of available time for matter in the universe.

Mind boggling stuff, thoughts?

Effectively what I've realized is this.

A person has a brain.

If that person's brain has no electrical activity within it then there is no person.

A brain (as physical matter with protons and neutrons and cells and...) therefore only exists as potential for a person.

This therefore points to the fact that who you are isn't your brain (that's only the potential of who you are.) Who you are is the electrical activity firing off in ways unique to you. (Feel free to dispute this, I'm no neurologist or psychologist)

"You" then is constantly being redefined as your brain changes so too your electrical impulses.

The OP was concerned with what occurs with the last electrical impulse seeing as it is simply many streams of electrons. The last imprint of yourself on this planet (massive energy surge through the brain before going dead I read somewhere) will be this energy in the brain.

Now my understand of massless particles or "point mass" particles is that they don't experience time as we're aware of now. They're also subject to quantum mechanics.

Take for example a photon. (light particle) As the photon experiences 1 tick of time the rest of the universe at 0 velocity experiences an infinite period of time. I'm unsure of how this works for electrons however I assume it's similarish. So effectively I'm saying this, the last "tick of time" you'll be aware of will be the entire universe experiencing an infinite amount of time as you die.

Now hoping I'm somewhat more clear >.<.

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what you mean.. I hope.. ! The way we feel is not how we present ourselves???

I guess the OP was open to interpretation xD.. But yeah, I've had a few people (and my mother >.>) telling me to stop looking so annoyed and angry when I was simply lost in deep thought. How we are perceived is not how we feel. Unfortunately this isn't the idea I was trying to convey :(.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that like saying your computer would take an infinite amount of time to switch off?

I think you're talking about time dilation, which traveling at light speed there is no experience of 1 tick as time comes to a stand still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that like saying your computer would take an infinite amount of time to switch off?

I think you're talking about time dilation, which traveling at light speed there is no experience of 1 tick as time comes to a stand still.

Not quite. I'm trying to think of what happens to it subjective. Objectively we view a computer turning off. Subjectively the (assuming the computer had awareness) it doesn't experience turning off. It only experience turning off and then immediately being turned on. The last "tick of time" it is aware of instantaneously encompasses the remaining time to turn on again. The very last time it turns off then will instantaneously encompass the rest of available time as far as it's concerned.

There is a slight problem though in that photons don't have rest mass where as electrons do. I'm not sure if the same time dilation principles would apply to electrons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite. I'm trying to think of what happens to it subjective. Objectively we view a computer turning off. Subjectively the (assuming the computer had awareness) it doesn't experience turning off. It only experience turning off and then immediately being turned on. The last "tick of time" it is aware of instantaneously encompasses the remaining time to turn on again. The very last time it turns off then will instantaneously encompass the rest of available time as far as it's concerned.

There is a slight problem though in that photons don't have rest mass where as electrons do. I'm not sure if the same time dilation principles would apply to electrons.

I'm not sure "aware" is an accurate term when you really aren't aware.

If the universe takes an infinite amount of time before you to die (or lose consciousness), technically an outside observer will never see you die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure "aware" is an accurate term when you really aren't aware.

If the universe takes an infinite amount of time before you to die (or lose consciousness), technically an outside observer will never see you die.

Hmm. It probably would be a convergent experience (the time becoming smaller and smaller approaching death but only ever reaching it after a subjectively infinite period of time.)

I suppose I'm implying this could be a divergent experience but it doesn't really fit objectively unless we're dealing with particles that DO have 0 rest mass.

Anyway, the observer WOULD see you die. The physical, potential you. It's unclear what happens to the kinetic you though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I feel the the self that we're aware of is an expression of the matter that defines us. That self that we're aware of then exists as potential in the form of brain energy/electricity. Assume that the matter that defines us loses it's ability to produce the potential we're aware of. As the potential we're aware of exists in the form of an inordinate number of electrical impulses at different rates of frequency (which also happens to be massless) then the last tick of time that we'll be aware of will incorporate the rest of available time for matter in the universe.

Mind boggling stuff, thoughts?

Reality is created by the mind in response to electrical signals from our senses. If the mind was created from a brain like a computer program runs on a PC then our minds would be located inside our heads.

However we dont experience reality inside our heads we experience it all around us. Therefore the mind might be connected to our brain but it isnt located inside our heads.

Edited by Mr Right Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reality is created by the mind in response to electrical signals from our senses. If the mind was created from a brain like a computer program runs on a PC then our minds would be located inside our heads.

However we dont experience reality inside our heads we experience it all around us. Therefore the mind might be connected to our brain but it isnt located inside our heads.

The mind is directly dependent on these electrical signals however and one can say that it's a complex symphony of these signals that is in itself the mind. Regarding to where it is however. Where it is is an illusion. It's merely a reference point that's convenient for where we physically are in 3 dimensional space.

The mind "unhinges" when you're asleep as it does not need to physically be where you are in order to continue operating.

A similar thought experiment. If your remove only the brain and extend the nerve fibers indefinitely your brain could be on the moon but you will still experience reality from where your body is. Your head could have empty space in the middle with your brain removed but you'll still feel like you're in your head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reality is created by the mind in response to electrical signals from our senses. If the mind was created from a brain like a computer program runs on a PC then our minds would be located inside our heads.

Which they are, unless you're going to deny the existence of mind altering substances that act on the nervous system.
However we dont experience reality inside our heads we experience it all around us. Therefore the mind might be connected to our brain but it isnt located inside our heads.

No, we receive input that travels to the inside of our heads.

If our mind wasn't located in our heads, there would be no reason for our nervous system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Effectively what I've realized is this.

A person has a brain.

If that person's brain has no electrical activity within it then there is no person.

A brain (as physical matter with protons and neutrons and cells and...) therefore only exists as potential for a person.

This therefore points to the fact that who you are isn't your brain (that's only the potential of who you are.) Who you are is the electrical activity firing off in ways unique to you. (Feel free to dispute this, I'm no neurologist or psychologist)

"You" then is constantly being redefined as your brain changes so too your electrical impulses.

The OP was concerned with what occurs with the last electrical impulse seeing as it is simply many streams of electrons. The last imprint of yourself on this planet (massive energy surge through the brain before going dead I read somewhere) will be this energy in the brain.

Now my understand of massless particles or "point mass" particles is that they don't experience time as we're aware of now. They're also subject to quantum mechanics.

Take for example a photon. (light particle) As the photon experiences 1 tick of time the rest of the universe at 0 velocity experiences an infinite period of time. I'm unsure of how this works for electrons however I assume it's similarish. So effectively I'm saying this, the last "tick of time" you'll be aware of will be the entire universe experiencing an infinite amount of time as you die.

Now hoping I'm somewhat more clear >.<.

Thoughts?

I understand what you are driving at, but why should the last 'tick' be any different to all the other 'ticks' during our lifetime?

If anything, the very first 'tick' that we experience would last the lifetime of the universe, if what you propose were to be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I understand what you are driving at, but why should the last 'tick' be any different to all the other 'ticks' during our lifetime?

I've thought of this and I feel it's due to our perception constantly being redefined in waves as the potential for who we are (our brains) drive us. I feel that every tick influences the potential self until the very last potential self is the accumulation of you however this experience most probably must be convergent. Who you are is constantly being redefined but it seems seamless to us. The you that may experience an infinite amount of time at one tick influences the potential for you (the brain) and a new you that comes out of that.

If anything, the very first 'tick' that we experience would last the lifetime of the universe, if what you propose were to be true.

I thought of the possibility of this however after thinking about it again I realized that electrons do have rest mass. I was relating my thoughts regarding photons (which don't have rest mass.) As a result the experience wouldn't be divergent (taking up the lifetime of the universe.) It would be convergent (becoming infinitely small or at least to whatever the smallest is assuming no holographic universe.)

Edit: If the universe is cyclic and holographic however then convergence of perception would take up the lifetime of the universe subjectively.

Edit2: This may be read as that there are an inordinately large number of "yous" experiencing this convergence of dropping off of the material level of reality. I don't believe this is the case however. In every time coordinate the "you" is seamlessly joined onto the next "you" for the next time coordinate on the material level. As a result we're not aware of a previous "you" dropping off of the material level. Perceptually as we're constantly spawned out of the potential of "you" the very last perception of "you" will experience this convergent dive into infinity.

Edited by PsiSeeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought of the possibility of this however after thinking about it again I realized that electrons do have rest mass. I was relating my thoughts regarding photons (which don't have rest mass.)

It is debateable the photon does not have any innate (rest) mass, however we shall assume for this purpose it is true. The photon, however, does have a 'virtual mass' by dint of it having momentum. This 'virtual mass' would negate the points in your argument where you use the photon as a reference 'massless particle'.

Additionally, why would your last thoughts be photonic, rather than electronic, in nature? The brain does not, as far as I am aware, 'switch' over to become an optronic network at the moment of death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It is debateable the photon does not have any innate (rest) mass, however we shall assume for this purpose it is true. The photon, however, does have a 'virtual mass' by dint of it having momentum. This 'virtual mass' would negate the points in your argument where you use the photon as a reference 'massless particle'.

Additionally, why would your last thoughts be photonic, rather than electronic, in nature? The brain does not, as far as I am aware, 'switch' over to become an optronic network at the moment of death.

I agree and am aware of this. Thus changing my perception that the experience isn't a divergent one but a convergent one as we are electronic, so to speak. For it to be divergent electrons have to be massless, which they are not.

And anyway, the 'virtual mass' would only negate my argument of Einstein was wrong regarding the relativity of time. Nevertheless I no longer believe it is a divergent experience (optronic) but convergent (electronic).

Edit: Convergence and divergence are derived out of a basic understanding of infinite series. In this example either approaching the infinitude of one's own death or that of the universe's death where one's own is taken as convergent and the universe's as divergent in relation to subjective time.

Edit2: Ergh, when I refer to the universe's death I mean it in terms of entropy rendering everything energy-less. Regarding one's own death I'm referring to the electrical surge, not the physical. Objectively it would look almost instantaneous. Subjectively I'm not so sure.

Edited by PsiSeeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The mind is directly dependent on these electrical signals however and one can say that it's a complex symphony of these signals that is in itself the mind. Regarding to where it is however. Where it is is an illusion. It's merely a reference point that's convenient for where we physically are in 3 dimensional space.

The mind "unhinges" when you're asleep as it does not need to physically be where you are in order to continue operating.

A similar thought experiment. If your remove only the brain and extend the nerve fibers indefinitely your brain could be on the moon but you will still experience reality from where your body is. Your head could have empty space in the middle with your brain removed but you'll still feel like you're in your head.

Do you agree that -

1. Reality is mind?

2. We experience reality existing outside our brains?

3. Mind therefore exists outside of our brains (or a large part of it)?

4. All we know to exist is mind because reality is mind?

Lets break it down properly so I can see your thinking.

I know I have never experienced reality in my head I've always noticed it out there. I believe the mind is connected to the brain but it isnt located there.

Edited by Mr Right Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which they are, unless you're going to deny the existence of mind altering substances that act on the nervous system.

No, we receive input that travels to the inside of our heads.

If our mind wasn't located in our heads, there would be no reason for our nervous system.

Show me how a computer program exists outside the computer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you agree that -

1. Reality is mind?

Subjectively yes. Incorrect perceptions of objective reality (mental illness or perhaps drugs) can alter the subjective reality. That is to say subjectively reality isn't necessarily accurate.

2. We experience reality existing outside our brains?

We experience reality as "outside of our brains" due to a convenient illusion our brain cooked up for us. It does not however subjectively exist "outside of our brains." Everything we see is exactly in terms of our brain. Everything we see is only a copy as our brains perceive it built upon our senses.

3. Mind therefore exists outside of our brains (or a large part of it)?

Your way of wording this sounds like you believe that the mind is reality. Even in the case that it was we only perceive it as existing outside of our brains. It does not objectively operate outside of our brains.

4. All we know to exist is mind because reality is mind?

Not necessarily. We agree upon what exists due to consensus of diverse subjective populaces. How accurate this is is obviously up to debate. Theoretically the only thing we subjectively know that exists is self. Everything else is a copy as we perceive it in our world. The only reason we can even agree upon anything objective is because of subjective consensus.

Lets break it down properly so I can see your thinking.

I know I have never experienced reality in my head I've always noticed it out there. I believe the mind is connected to the brain but it isnt located there.

When you look at yourself in a mirror you notice that your reflection is behind the mirror. Is your reflection actually behind the mirror?

A person's perspective of what reality is can be drastically shifted in a matter of seconds. If you take some serious mind altering hallucinogenic drug then do you believe that reality in itself is doing what you perceive? In the event that you see that reality in fact DOESN'T alter as these chemicals play around with your brain then you MUST admit that reality is a product of the brain. However objective and subjective realities are two different things.

Subjectively reality isn't located "out there" in the experience. Objectively it seems plausible to say that there is an external world. We can't appreciate true objectivity as we are now. Objectiveness, as we're aware of it now, only exists as subjective consensus of a diverse populace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your perspective is an appendage of reality. It does not constitute the whole of reality. Not even close.

A thing is yours, never your own.

Get a grip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your perspective is an appendage of reality. It does not constitute the whole of reality. Not even close.

A thing is yours, never your own.

Get a grip.

It's unclear who you're actually talking to here. It is clear that you do not understand the difference between objective and subjective reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

To clarify for anyone reading this thread. The OP was concerned with a divergent experience resulting from the last electrical impulse of the brain. This experience would encompass the rest of available time if the surge of electricity behaved as light. However after looking into it more I realize that it DOESN'T due to the fact that electrons have rest mass.

Edit: This is all derived out of the relativity of time. It should be clear to see that we are bound to the matter that defines us up until the last moment. After this there is a period of time where who and what we are exists purely as electrical energy. This is what my concepts overall are concerned with.

Edited by PsiSeeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show me how a computer program exists outside the computer.

It doesn't, it receives input from outside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.