Deep Thoughts

[zzz_pt]

Immaterial properties? You mean electrical signals passed between neurons?

I mean what we are and identify as as a consequence of those electrical signals passed between neurons.

 

[Danoff]

I mean what we are and identify as as a consequence of those electrical signals passed between neurons.

I'm still looking for something immaterial. So far, based on everything we know about how animals, brains, humans, matter, energy, and physics works, your thoughts and consciousness are the sum total of the particles that make up your body.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

I'm still looking for something immaterial. So far, based on everything we know about how animals, brains, humans, matter, energy, and physics works, your thoughts and consciousness are the sum total of the particles that make up your body.

The feeling that makes you...you. If somebody clones you, you won't be suddenly thinking in two brains. Somebody else may get confused about which one is the clone, but each "version" personally will have have their own thoughts.

 

[zzz_pt]

I'm still looking for something immaterial. So far, based on everything we know about how animals, brains, humans, matter, energy, and physics works, your thoughts and consciousness are the sum total of the particles that make up your body.

But they're not material. We can't see them on a MRI or microscope like we can see the particles and physical stuff we're made of. That's why I say it's emergent and immaterial. Like digestion is an immaterial emergent property of our digestive system. Consciousness is the digestion of our brain. Is what it does, not what it is. That's how I see it at least.

Sorry of this sounds wierd. I'm walking out or a bar and I'm a bit tipsy.

 

[Michael88]

Memories are material, memories are neurons arranged in a specific pattern so they create a certain memory, like a code. They could be perfectly copied and duplicated. They can also be easily destroyed, altered or damaged by physical injuries - or by age, which happens all the time.

With very advanced technology I could cut out and even replace the memories you have. Scientists are already working on the very basics of that ''neurosurgery'' as we speak. And it is certainly possible to create a exact copy of your brain, with memories and all. There is nothing immaterial, non-physical that cannot be copied in your brain. A very good atomic printer should be able to do this.

Hence my question, if my brain could be duplicated, which body would the current singular ''I'' ''occupy'' then, and why? Would I occupy two bodies at once, control two bodies at once? Which one would be the original one if both are the exact same? And why? If the original me gets killed, does the original me still carry on in the new body or is the original, current me destroyed? But why, the other one still exists and its basically the same so I still live?

 

[polysmut]

Memories are material, memories are neurons arranged in a specific pattern so they create a certain memory, like a code. They could be perfectly copied and duplicated. They can also be easily destroyed, altered or damaged by physical injuries - or by age, which happens all the time.

With very advanced technology I could cut out and even replace the memories you have. Scientists are already working on the very basics of that ''neurosurgery'' as we speak. And it is certainly possible to create a exact copy of your brain, with memories and all. There is nothing immaterial, non-physical that cannot be copied in your brain. A very good atomic printer should be able to do this.

Hence my question, if my brain could be duplicated, which body would the current singular ''I'' ''occupy'' then, and why? Would I occupy two bodies at once, control two bodies at once? Which one would be the original one if both are the exact same? And why? If the original me gets killed, does the original me still carry on in the new body or is the original, current me destroyed? But why, the other one still exists and its basically the same so I still live?

And could the memories of crimes within a newer, duplicate brain be used to convict the original brain?

 

[Michael88]

And could the memories of crimes within a newer, duplicate brain be used to convict the original brain?

Thinking about the right stuff! Do a horrible crime, pin it on your clone including memory transplant.

Guess the only viable solution would be convicting both your clone and the original you, since nobody can tell who is who.

 

[polysmut]

Thinking about the right stuff! Do a horrible crime, pin it on your clone including memory transplant.

Guess the only viable solution would be convicting both your clone and the original you, since nobody can tell who is who.

I was thinking more that if I commit a crime now, then I'm cloned, will the clone's memory prove my guilt?

Your plan might be the way around this.

 

[Danoff]

The feeling that makes you...you. If somebody clones you, you won't be suddenly thinking in two brains. Somebody else may get confused about which one is the clone, but each "version" personally will have have their own thoughts.

If we're talking about a perfect copy of every particle, they're both you (thinking separately) until they begin to have separate experiences. And then they're different.

But they're not material. We can't see them on a MRI or microscope like we can see the particles and physical stuff we're made of. That's why I say it's emergent and immaterial. Like digestion is an immaterial emergent property of our digestive system. Consciousness is the digestion of our brain. Is what it does, not what it is. That's how I see it at least.

Sorry of this sounds wierd. I'm walking out or a bar and I'm a bit tipsy.

If you were to copy every particle in your body, digestion would proceed exactly as it had been.

 

[Danoff]

I once told my girlfriend in high school that one of the other kids at school was an a-hole. She told me "Noooooo, he's so sweet! What are you talking about?" My response was "Yea, he's super nice to you, you're hot. He's a d-bag to everyone else".

I wonder if women manage to achieve greater empathy due to people on average being nicer to them than to men. There's a lot to verify in that. First, are people really nicer to women than men (I mean like in a day-to-day interpersonal sense)? Second, are women actually more empathetic than men on average? Third, is that a cause-and-effect relationship? I don't know the answers to those questions. But it does make me wonder if men are more sour, and if so, would that be because the world seems meaner?

 

[Pupik]

I once told my girlfriend in high school that one of the other kids at school was an a-hole. She told me "Noooooo, he's so sweet! What are you talking about?" My response was "Yea, he's super nice to you, you're hot. He's a d-bag to everyone else".

I wonder if women manage to achieve greater empathy due to people on average being nicer to them than to men. There's a lot to verify in that. First, are people really nicer to women than men (I mean like in a day-to-day interpersonal sense)? Second, are women actually more empathetic than men on average? I don't know the answers to those questions. But it does make me wonder if men are more sour, and if so, would that be because the world seems meaner?

There's a lot of different personalities out there.

A lot of high school minds are caveman brains: protect woman from harm and from other non-like men-folk who want caveman's property. Speak up like bigger beast and impress she-folk and protect small heard from dangers of selfish he-jerk. Or maybe she just like paintings and furnishings of cave interior, or imagine he-jerk as future tribal leader.

This go against modern anti-geocentric gender-beast study-smarts, but I think a lot of society still shaded by bell curve in terms of ancient behaviors, which take many galactic twirls to change (hey, where did mammoth all go?)

I never understood the "nice gal who liked a total jerk" idea when I was younger, but it's a long-lasting archetype for someone to want contrast and adventure; though sometimes people are just fooled easily and succumb to brainwashing. Other times, we seek a partner as one might for tennis: someone who's strong where one may be weak.

 

[Danoff]

There's a lot of different personalities out there.

A lot of high school minds are caveman brains: protect woman from harm and from other non-like men-folk who want caveman's property. Speak up like bigger beast and impress she-folk and protect small heard from dangers of selfish he-jerk. Or maybe she just like paintings and furnishings of cave interior, or imagine he-jerk as future tribal leader.

This go against modern anti-geocentric gender-beast study-smarts, but I think a lot of society still shaded by bell curve in terms of ancient behaviors, which take many galactic twirls to change (hey, where did mammoth all go?)

I never understood the "nice gal who liked a total jerk" idea when I was younger, but it's a long-lasting archetype for someone to want contrast and adventure; though sometimes people are just fooled easily and succumb to brainwashing. Other times, we seek a partner as one might for tennis: someone who's strong where one may be weak.

Someone who is rude or abusive to other members of their gender could be viewed as dominant, which can be a desirable trait in a partner to the extremely short-sighted person who lacks overall awareness and experience.

But that wasn't really where I was headed. I was more musing whether men are nicer (on balance) to women than to other men. Especially attractive ones. I suppose if my theory were to pan out, we might actually see increased empathy among women who are generally accepted as beautiful. I suppose that would only work to a point though. Get beautiful enough and the world starts to look weird. There would be a balance, where you're attractive, but not so attractive that you think you're getting unusual treatment - which makes you think that the people around you treating you nicely is just how the world is for everyone - leading you to a better opinion of humans in general, a rosier outlook, and better identification with the people around you.

 

[Touring Mars]

I once told my girlfriend in high school that one of the other kids at school was an a-hole. She told me "Noooooo, he's so sweet! What are you talking about?" My response was "Yea, he's super nice to you, you're hot. He's a d-bag to everyone else".

I wonder if women manage to achieve greater empathy due to people on average being nicer to them than to men. There's a lot to verify in that. First, are people really nicer to women than men (I mean like in a day-to-day interpersonal sense)? Second, are women actually more empathetic than men on average? Third, is that a cause-and-effect relationship? I don't know the answers to those questions. But it does make me wonder if men are more sour, and if so, would that be because the world seems meaner?

I shared an office last year with 15 other people - all girls except a Portuguese guy (who never acknowledged me once), a Greek guy (who never acknowledged me once); a Saudi chap who prayed to Mecca every few hours (though he at least would say hello), and a Chinese guy who would occasionally say hello.

The rest were girls, and most of them were considerably more friendly - one or two never said hello, but a few others were very friendly and would always chat, and ask how you were.

The Greek guy got on my nerves though. He was super-friendly to this Greek girl, but pretty much ignored everyone else.

That said, because he was so unfriendly, I ended up ignoring him too - and yet I was super-friendly to the (very lovely and very friendly) women (three of them ) in my office, and so he probably thinks the same about me

 

[Danoff]

I shared an office last year with 15 other people - all girls except a Portuguese guy (who never acknowledged me once), a Greek guy (who never acknowledged me once); a Saudi chap who prayed to Mecca every few hours (though he at least would say hello), and a Chinese guy who would occasionally say hello.

The rest were girls, and most of them were considerably more friendly - one or two never said hello, but a few others were very friendly and would always chat, and ask how you were.

The Greek guy got on my nerves though. He was super-friendly to this Greek girl, but pretty much ignored everyone else.

That said, because he was so unfriendly, I ended up ignoring him too - and yet I was super-friendly to the (very lovely and very friendly) women (three of them ) in my office, and so he probably thinks the same about me

...And of course the girls were lovely and friendly, to them the world looks lovely and friendly.

I've got no data to back this up, but I remain suspicious.

 

[TheCracker]

I once told my girlfriend in high school that one of the other kids at school was an a-hole. She told me "Noooooo, he's so sweet! What are you talking about?" My response was "Yea, he's super nice to you, you're hot. He's a d-bag to everyone else".

I wonder if women manage to achieve greater empathy due to people on average being nicer to them than to men. There's a lot to verify in that. First, are people really nicer to women than men (I mean like in a day-to-day interpersonal sense)? Second, are women actually more empathetic than men on average? Third, is that a cause-and-effect relationship? I don't know the answers to those questions. But it does make me wonder if men are more sour, and if so, would that be because the world seems meaner?

I think it works both ways though. An attractive girl may get a higher proportion of the male population being nice to them, but at the same time may well experience a higher proportion of the female population not being so nice to them. You move the male slider one way but the female slider moves equally the other way. But there are so many other factors that having baring on it as well. Religion, up bringing, education, previous experience with members of the opposite sex, sexuality itself etc, etc. Not to mention the subjects own personality and how they present themselves.



This made me think of a similar deep thought on the subject of male - female relationships. The kind of perspective you get a better understanding of with time and experience from viewing the relationships of friends, your own and even just those of acquaintances. And i'd say that this works better for a sample group of under 30's, as i think attractiveness falls lower on the scale of priorities beyond that age. In very general terms. This is dating i'm talking about. When couples settle down, marry etc partners more often than not have a similar level of attractiveness. Subjectively.

Attractiveness* is obviously very subjective, but if you took a generic 1 - 10 scale of attractiveness, ten being the highest. For both male and female, i would say that women generally date men higher up the scale then themselves. I think this stems from the fact that men are less picky in what they want in a partner. A man who is a '7' may find women in the '6 -10' range attractive, but would realistically have a shot at those in the '4 - 8' range. In effect generally dating below what their actual point in the scale is - quantity over quality if you like. This allows the pool of females to expect to be able to date up the scale. Quality over quantity.

I see this as a result of of the Darwinian thoughts that within the animal kingdom males want to spread their seed as much as possible - giving the best chance of procreating, where as females want only the best seed they can get hold of - so their offspring has the best chance of survival. I know this no longer really applies to humans, but we are still animals at the end of the day and maybe these urges are deeply bread into our conscious.

I also see it as the answer to why women, much more than men, feel they get used or messed around by the men in their lives. If those men subconsciously feel there's someone better around the corner, someone higher on the scale than their current partner, then that current relationship is unbalanced. And why some guys think that women only go for 'bad boys'. Because the women who are naturally on the same level on the scale as them are often dating men higher up that scale who don't feel they are dating for keeps. Those 'bad boys' are aware that because they are dating below the point they could be, are allowing themselves a bigger sample group to swim in - the 4s, 5s, 6s, 7s and on a good day, the 8s. The women actually have a better pool of candidates available, but as the men have in effect pushed them higher up the scale than their natural position would be, their perceived sample group is smaller and the competition for it stiffer.

This is of course very much a generalization, just a rough gathering of random thoughts expressed quickly and roughly whilst i'm finishing up at the end of the working week.



*I'm classing attractiveness as a multi-faceted subject that not only encompasses looks, body type, personality etc, but status and wealth and all the other aspects that make a difference, if mainly on a subconscious level.

 

[Famine]

You move the male slider one way but the female slider moves equally the other way.

Please never teach sex education.

 

[Danoff]

I think it works both ways though. An attractive girl may get a higher proportion of the male population being nice to them, but at the same time may well experience a higher proportion of the female population not being so nice to them. You move the male slider one way but the female slider moves equally the other way.

Could be, but I don't think so. Everything I've seen on the subject suggests that people are nicer to beautiful people in general.

 

[Touring Mars]

...And of course the girls were lovely and friendly, to them the world looks lovely and friendly.

I've got no data to back this up, but I remain suspicious.

The day I left, one was pregnant*, one cried** and the other one asked me if I would be a referee on her curriculum vitae***

Spoiler

* & ** Nothing to do with me, *** She didn't realise yet that asking a postdoc for a reference is a bit like asking Sir Rod Stewart how to quit drinking

 

[Skython]

Someone who is rude or abusive to other members of their gender could be viewed as dominant, which can be a desirable trait in a partner to the extremely short-sighted person who lacks overall awareness and experience.

But that wasn't really where I was headed. I was more musing whether men are nicer (on balance) to women than to other men. Especially attractive ones. I suppose if my theory were to pan out, we might actually see increased empathy among women who are generally accepted as beautiful. I suppose that would only work to a point though. Get beautiful enough and the world starts to look weird. There would be a balance, where you're attractive, but not so attractive that you think you're getting unusual treatment - which makes you think that the people around you treating you nicely is just how the world is for everyone - leading you to a better opinion of humans in general, a rosier outlook, and better identification with the people around you.

Perhaps it's just attractive people in general? Unless our society puts a priority on the attractiveness of one gender above the other (they wouldn't do that, would they!? ).

 

[Danoff]

Perhaps it's just attractive people in general? Unless our society puts a priority on the attractiveness of one gender above the other (they wouldn't do that, would they!? ).

Basically all of the above. But also I think that males are more focused on physical attractiveness - which means that females would be more likely to experience what I'm talking about.

 

[Pupik]

What if they'd just invented motorized horse manure cleaners that didn't spook equines?

Where would we all be right now?

 

[TexRex]

On bended knee before our equine overlords. Horse skittishness has spared us from bondage.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Could the Reese's Take 5 candy bar rival the Snickers bar for the top candy bar?

possibly

 

[Com Fox]

About the Toy Story movies. Why do the Toys need to hide the fact they are sentient? What's the penalty for doing so? Woody was able to scary Sid ****less without any repercussions. What's stopping Toys from just revealing themselves? Do they get vaporised and the humans memory erased and they took exception with Sid because he was killing Toys so Karma?

I guess it isn't the why I get deep in thought about. More the what even happens if the rule is broken?

 

[Saidur_Ali]

About the Toy Story movies. Why do the Toys need to hide the fact they are sentient? What's the penalty for doing so? Woody was able to scary Sid ****less without any repercussions. What's stopping Toys from just revealing themselves? Do they get vaporised and the humans memory erased and they took exception with Sid because he was killing Toys so Karma?

I guess it isn't the why I get deep in thought about. More the what even happens if the rule is broken?

So they can be just toys and not risk humans being scared of them and put their whole existence into danger. No toy should feel like trash so always play nice!

 

[Com Fox]

So they can be just toys and not risk humans being scared of them and put their whole existence into danger. No toy should feel like trash so always play nice!

But how do they know that would happen? Has there been an example that the Toys learn upon creation?

 

[HenrySwanson]

This reminds me of a really good review of Toy Story 4 (that I can't find now) that took issue with the fact that the toys could so easily make their own way in the world without feeling beholden to an owner.

 

[Famine]

About the Toy Story movies. Why do the Toys need to hide the fact they are sentient? What's the penalty for doing so? Woody was able to scary Sid ****less without any repercussions. What's stopping Toys from just revealing themselves? Do they get vaporised and the humans memory erased and they took exception with Sid because he was killing Toys so Karma?

I guess it isn't the why I get deep in thought about. More the what even happens if the rule is broken?

Why does Buzz freeze in the first one even though he doesn't know he's a toy and doesn't think that he is?

 

[Danoff]

I once told my girlfriend in high school that one of the other kids at school was an a-hole. She told me "Noooooo, he's so sweet! What are you talking about?" My response was "Yea, he's super nice to you, you're hot. He's a d-bag to everyone else".

I wonder if women manage to achieve greater empathy due to people on average being nicer to them than to men. There's a lot to verify in that. First, are people really nicer to women than men (I mean like in a day-to-day interpersonal sense)? Second, are women actually more empathetic than men on average? Third, is that a cause-and-effect relationship? I don't know the answers to those questions. But it does make me wonder if men are more sour, and if so, would that be because the world seems meaner?

I just had a frustrating experience with customer service on the phone. My wife called after I was told to pound sand, got the exact same customer service person, as was not told to pound sand. There is no small part of me that thinks that it's just a difference in how they respond to a male voice vs. female. My wife is also a little nicer, but I was not rude at all. Perhaps this makes women happier and more likely to be friendly and therefore more likely to be helped.

 

[Pupik]

About the Toy Story movies. Why do the Toys need to hide the fact they are sentient? What's the penalty for doing so? Woody was able to scary Sid ****less without any repercussions. What's stopping Toys from just revealing themselves? Do they get vaporised and the humans memory erased and they took exception with Sid because he was killing Toys so Karma?

I guess it isn't the why I get deep in thought about. More the what even happens if the rule is broken?

I've long thought that it's because the Toys are small, and if Humans were aware they were sentiment, they'd rise up and destroy them. The toys are primarily made of plastic, and they'd be melted down into oil. Now if the Toys partnered with the Vehicles, maybe it would be a fair fight. I'm pretty sure Humans would lose a fight with a crane or even a well-placed shopping cart, but we have some control of the Energon Cubes, albeit a tenuous one with different-colored Humans.

There's a hole in that theory, because Hasbro already had dibs on that story.