An Idea

[Profpat]

ME, MY SELF, and I agree with you Austin. ME representing the physical ( Mass/Energy ). SELF representing the soul or spirit ( Individual self reconciling with higher self ) and I the mental portion I AM ( I think therefore I am )

A Triune brain: Reptilian, Mammilian, Human.

I said to myself, self I said.

Where did my idea come from?

Best,

Pat

P.S. Id, Ego, Superego......Parent, Adult, Child. ( TRINITY ) The dynamics which run the universe.

[Profpat]

[dipayankar]

That was a very good analogy Prof. However like in a computer Hardware and Software come as seperate entities, I guess mind is derived from the brain itself.

Once more you ask an excellent question Dipayankar. My own thoughts are that the mind is like the software that runs the computer. the computer itself ( the hardware ) is the brain. Both indeed are necessary to have a functional unit. The software gets programed through physical inputs. This also includes how your parents and society has affected your programing.

An internet research yielded this:


Brain vs. Mind
Introduction Mind results from the organized connections of neurons within the brain, connected both to the environment and to mechanisms for changing the environment (muscles). So is it true to say the mind is nothing but the brain? Scientists who want to find better ways to explain the connection between the brain and mind often take the view that all that´s necessary to understand the mind is in the brain, because that keeps them looking for materially-based explanations, which is how cognitive science progresses. However, at present no one can say for sure how a single "thought" happens, and probably many aspects of cognition will never be explained through a scientific approach alone. Explanations of our thoughts are a subset of our thoughts, not the other way around. Theories should be tools to help us understand and better ourselves, not weapons for those who want to degrade our appreciation of ourselves and other human beings by reducing us to organic machines.

Thanks for the question. What are your thoughts on the subject? Other members are of course invited to this discussion.

Very best to you sir,

Pat

P.S. Does an idea or a concept consume energy?

[rybot]

The conscious mind is a higher, more global, part of the brain, but is the last to know of the brain's smaller minds analyzing their own domains. Then it gets fed back into the brain sometimes for a more creative result.

I kept on talking to myself and it was good company, but sometimes my higher self had to tell my lower self that it was acting crazy.

Good thoughts Austin.

If there is a niche/void to be filled, Mother Nature will attempt to fill it, because, she abhors a vacuum.

When consciousness rests, dreams rush in, to the fill conscious void.

Naught is lost in Mother Nature.

Gravitational 'spacetime' has angular propensity towards self, ergo, perhaps self-referencing viewpoints are gravitational points-of-view.

We may come to realize, that, self-referencing is fundamental aspect of gravity turning all physics back into their selves.

One possible dynamic of a torus, is that, it in-volves, --towards the center hole-- then evolves( out ) --away from center hole-- only to in-volve into itself again.

In Rybonics link as follows, we see no less than 8, 5-fold, overlapping, gravitational interference patterns, always turning all other 5-fold and 4-fold patterns, back into themselves i.e. naught is ever lost outward into the macro-micro-infinite void of a true nothingness vacuum.

Universe and our thoughts exist within a closed system, or scenario, if you prefer.

http://home.usit.net/~rybo6/rybo/id12.html

Rybo

[Farsight]

So only in the interaction does the electric field becomes magnetic. Would that then still not imply a change of expression for the EM entity that can be considered as each expression being the other's inside-out version. When you say no: how do you know when all information remains otherwise absolutely the same?

There's just no sense of "inside out" here. The regular physics is that an electric field IS a magnetic field if you're moving through it. It's the same thing. It just depends on how you observe it.

Farside; It’s called an E/M field due to the fact that it produces electrical influence with its linear velocity and a magnetic influence with its angular momentum. This is “regular physics”; yours is NOT.

Whoa, hold it right there. Let me reiterate: if you move through an electric field you would call it a magnetic field. If you move through a magnetic field you would call it an electric field. Now that's regular physics. If you're disputing it, it's time you went back to school.

This is how misconceptions get passed on to others. When referring to such physics fundamentals you should reference a real physics text book and leave personal opinions out of it. That is also why the angular momentum of particles produce what is called their “magnetic moments”.

This the ToE forum, not the physics textbook forum. And I made it perfectly clear that the "twist field" and "turn field" were my interpretations.

[dleviwing]

Farside;
Members need only to check our profiles to decide who they should listen to. The text book description seems to have worked very well for my students; it would appear that you were not one of them.

[Farsight]

No, I wasn't.

And readers will not find the theory of everything in your textbook.

Now go and look up the relationship between an electric field and a magnetic field. If you move through an electric field it appears to be a magnetic field. If you move through a magnetic field it appears to be an electric field. It's regular physics. It's basic stuff. This is why we have electric motors and dynamos. That's why it's called an electromagnetic field.

[dleviwing]

John;
You are referring to the EM fields of radiant energy in your posts but giving views of the separate phenomena of charge and magnetism. Let’s separate the apples, oranges and grapes John. A moving electrical field (current) will produce a magnetic field; a moving magnetic field will produce moving electrons. Moving through a magnetic field will NOT produce charge (electric field) it can only produce voltage differential no matter how one may view it. You are being ambiguous by mixing EM phenomena with the separate phenomena of charge and magnetism!

It would appear that you are viewing electrical differential (voltage) as a field whereas I view the charge of a particle as being an electrical field. Unless you are interpreting EM as ElectroMotive force, it has nothing to do with motors and dynamos. Radio, lasers, solar cells and so on, may be better examples.

Let’s not disrupt Profpat’s thread anymore than we have already.

Profpat;
If you like, I'll remove these posts from your thread.

[Profpat]

Thanks for the offer David but open discussions are always helpful. Thanks for the input gentlemen.

Best to you both,

Pat

[Farsight]

You are referring to the EM fields of radiant energy in your posts but giving views of the separate phenomena of charge and magnetism. Let’s separate the apples, oranges and grapes John. A moving electrical field (current) will produce a magnetic field;

Look to your relativity. Motion is relative. You can't say whether it's you moving or the electric field. So when you move through an electric field but don't know it you perceive yourself to be in a magnetic field. An electric field moving through you is an identical situation. It doesn't produce a magnetic field. It is a magnetic field if you're moving relative to it. The difference is merely down to your frame of reference.

A moving magnetic field will produce moving electrons. Moving through a magnetic field will NOT produce charge (electric field) it can only produce voltage differential no matter how one may view it. You are being ambiguous by mixing EM phenomena with the separate phenomena of charge and magnetism!

Wrong. If you are moving through an electric field at say 10m/s but don't know it, you would claim you were at rest in a magnetic field. Assume I'm moving along with you. Then assume that I move at 10ms in an opposite direction. I would then assert that I'm at rest in an electric field. This electric field and the charge that caused it were already there. I didn't "create it" by moving through what you assert to be a magnetic field.

It would appear that you are viewing electrical differential (voltage) as a field whereas I view the charge of a particle as being an electrical field. Unless you are interpreting EM as ElectroMotive force, it has nothing to do with motors and dynamos. Radio, lasers, solar cells and so on, may be better examples.

I understand charge and magnetism along with all electromagnetic phenomena. Totally and absolutely. If you actually read what I've offered instead of sniping your refusal, you might appreciate this.

Let’s not disrupt Profpat’s thread anymore than we have already.

See Profpat's reply above. Whilst you might not believe it, I'm for real. If you don't believe me, test me on any problem in physics that puzzles you. I can give a logical and coherent response to most. If you'd prefer to take it to the thread I started, that's fine by me.