"The optic nerve carries sensory nerve impulses from the more than one million ganglion cells of the retina toward the visual centres in the brain. The vast majority of optic nerve fibres convey information regarding central vision. Encyclopedia Britannica" — Daemon

I think the EP confabulates here like a noctambule at daylight. The parallel flow of photons is projected, via the retina and optic nerves into the V regions of the cortex and other areas. If the flow was there before, or in a comparable form at least, the projection locks into the memory trails engraved before by the comparable flows before (synaps widenings, giving stronger connections between neurons). The scene is recognized. All neurons can be involved in almost an infinity of possible memmories.

I see my phone made a mistake. I wrote "interest me brainy world" while intended to write "inner brainy world". Like I said, I'm with you partially. I'm interested too in neurosciene. But I don't think "We Are Our Brain" (book). I think the brain helps us.

How would you explain this experience: get used to the dark of night. Then turn a bright lightbulb on and off fast while holding your arm beside of it. There is an bright after image and moving your arm seems like pulling it out of yourself. Weird... The image endures and changes color. Now this can all be explained by processes. But still... The experience is not explained.

Crazy Mall Bitches

Hit the pint friend! Back home safely. Seeya later!

You see, I've discussed this issue with numerous people on this sight, and nobody has been able to clearly articulate to me what they think consciousness is — Garrett Travers

I've said a few times that it are not the physical processes situated in the interest me "brainy" world, un-untieably connected with us and the physical world, that explain consciousness, but, rather, the contents of those processes that lay at base of consciousness.

For example, what did the West do for the rest of the world, in particularly economically, during the pandemic? Basically nada, — boethius

Indeed. Why should Eritrea support a world that threw millions of vaccines away that instead could have saved a lot of lives? Economy and capital ruling again.

The philosophers will annoy themselves with paradoxes such as 'is it true that there are no more questions?' — universeness

What will be the answer? Will it be the last question in the great book of questions? Will the answer be found in the appendix or supplement of the book? If the answer "no", what will be another question to ask?

Can't think of another question... Is that possible?

The liar's paradox of 'this statement is false' can be true within a particular instant of time. — universeness

So a statement can be false and true? The electron has mass but its essence has not?

If we know the basic fundamental workings of nature, couldn't we say then what things would be impossible to do?

What do you mean by timeless motion. — Benj96

Well, processes can be reversible and irreversible. All physical processes in the universe are irreversible. Before the big bang, there were no real particles yet to constitute irreversible time. But there was a kind of clock ticking in the form of virtual particles. That clock was (and is) in motion but it has no direction in time. In the case of a pendulum that has a constant period (which can't really exist, while a caesium clock or comparables come close and divert only 1 second in a trillion years or something) you can't tell if it goes forward or backwards. It's that motion I talk about, and that was only present before inflation, to kick inflation in one direction.

The problem is that the main tribes now have m.a.d. or mutually assured destruction facing all of us. Perhaps such a choice does have to be faced by an emergent intelligence such as us. — universeness

I'm not sure I understand. The choice of MAD, mad as it is, will be faced by an emerging intelligence?

he suggests the expansion will continue and heat deaths will eventually reach a point when all that's left is black holes and they will slowly evaporate and then we will only have space which he suggests is the same as having nothing. — universeness

If photons are all that's left, time has gone but there are still photons. Does he say how or where the new bang occurs? Or is that state itself the singularity?

Let's say you are correct. If you can think of a question that has not been answered and 'proved' then we cannot claim omnipotence or omniscience. I did not understand " Isnt knowing all knowing what can't be done also?" — universeness

But what if we can't think such a question (about the fundamentals, that is)?

If we know everything then don't we know also what's possible or not?

Craig listens much more than he talks, which I think is a good idea for him. — universeness

Haha! Sounds like Penrose holds a similar idea. The universe that is left after evaporation of all holes will contain photons only. Maybe some neutrinos if the holes are made of neutrons. These don't have a clock that ticks and no real clock will be present. All neutrinos will annihilate with anti neutrinos again, indirectly creating photons again. But where resides the singularity in Penrose's optics?

How about 'kindness/gesture of positivity/support toward the Universe — universeness

Yes! Here I completely agree. But not because gods made it, like you know I believe. The universe and all in it is just great.

If, and once, we have answered all questions, as we would then be omnipotent and omniscient.
This might take a while though. — universeness

Well, I think I know the answer to cosmological problems (matter/antimatter asymmetry with associated left/right asymmetry, hierarchy problem, arrow of time, fundamental fields, particle structure, etc.) but if that makes omnipotent? Isnt knowing all knowing what can't be done also?

I think this is a similar viewpoint to that of Roger Penrose but I think he also suggests that some information can pass from time epoch to time epoch and that each Universe may be very different.
He does not support the multiverse theory. — universeness

Similar but not the same. Does he postulate contraction after expansion?

The Universe needs you to do your duty — universeness

Do we have a duty towards the Universe? Sounds the same like having a duty towards god...

You think we could create a new universe?

So do you favour the oscillating Universe theory or Roger Penrose and his dissipating Universe and the creation of a new Universe within a new epoch of time? — universeness

Well, not exactly oscillatory in the sense of a big bañg-bang-big-crunch, etc. More like big-bang-big-rip kinda thing. If our universe has accelerated towards oblivion, it could be a sign for the singularity at the "origin" (of a 4d space) to start a new blast from virtuality (virtual particles). This new 3d blast can expand after us on the higher dimensional space it's in.

But we are components of the Universe, are we not? — universeness

I might hope so! But is there truly a greater whole? A cosmic Hydra?

Not yet no but nature suggests that for the sake of continued survival, it is wise to reproduce — universeness

Smolin says this happens inside black holes. Im sure you've heard that. But why should we if it all starts again after us? In a hunderd thousand trillion years after us? And if we could, you would have to pass a wormhole. If a wormhole comes to be in the first place (we'd be fucked...)

Maybe this clash with Russia will be the last of its kind if we survive it or perhaps there is another one to come with China. Maybe after that such craziness will become forever smaller and local. — universeness

Yeah. Let's hope (or pray, but I don't think that'll work) they won't nuke the fridge... Modern warfare ain't funny anymore.

Cosmic microwave background rats

I partially agree. I think the 14 billion years are one in many. I think that solves the problem of a beginning. There is no beginning, only beginnings following each other up. If all is dead and gone here (no pessimism intended here, I keep that for the foreseeable future), the universe reacts back to the source, from which a new time comes into being. Will we all meet again then? Who knows. I agree with all being endowed with consciousness. But not the universe as a whole trying to understand itself. It's us trying to understand. Are we just faces of the universe? A universal hydra? Well, I'm sure if my head is chopped off it won't grow back. Other heads pop up continuously though, but all with their own bodies. I don't think we can create a new universe. Why should we? Is the reason to life generating new life? And the reason for that new life to spring new life again? If so, then what for? To live? Why? To live! That's the meaning/reason to live. Life itself. Some people though fuck the planet up. What a mess... But what can we do?

Oh! Forgot one thing... Of course all is created by gods. There is no physical theory that is self explanatory. The finetuning problem doesn't exist in an eternal universe in which only massless partìcles interact with fixed couplings. No hierarchy problem. Gravity is weak because of a relative (to us) high speed of light.

Dunno. I know pretty well who I am. Maybe that's exactly the cause of existential weeping (so not the because the loss of a lost one, or because of physical pain). Well, not the fact that I know, but that being oneself is pretty difficult in a world that's not yours.

Though when I hear certain music which makes me weep I dont feel weak. It's more something of "damned, it could all be so great, and look what a mess we made of it".

If one suffers and one is in pain, one is weak. How could it be otherwise? — baker

Indeed. That's why some people don't wanna show tears.

Schopenhauer has an interesting interpretation in his essays about weeping. He tries to connect this emotion with "suffering and pain" instead of weakness — javi2541997

Weeping is the accompanying physical body state of suffering. Humans have accompanying tears also. Why? It's an expression. There can be tears of luck or laughter too. The tears contain different chemicals. The emotion somehow has to express. Maybe wolves kept from howling start weeping. Shouting while weeping helps.

It needs no evidential justification that my dog understands "are we going for a walk?" (In my native language). If I say so, her head rotates a bit. She knows what I mean. She understands the words. She reacts. Stands up nervously, comes to lick my face. Other words don't have that effect. No matter how I say them. That's the evidence, if one likes evidence.

Just don't say any word beginning with the letter 'w' until you are ready to leave. — Cuthbert

Ha! What we want?.... Oops...

But it is more complex than it. We just give it a significance. Our dogs act and interact with us but there is a gap between what we think and what they feel. This is why we have to train and educate our dogs. — javi2541997

She just has to learn not to pee in our bed. Damn her!

When the cat scratches at the cupboard door it's because she believes her food is in there. To think she doesn't have beliefs because she doesn't have language I would have to have a pre-existing theory about beliefs that would stop me thinking that. But why should I? — Cuthbert

Exactly. In a loose sense. If our dog jumps me and heads to where her leash hangs I understand what she tells me. Right now she makes a kind of weeping sound in fact. Wants my attention. I look at her, she looks back with asking eyes. How difficult can it be?

Our previous dog even waited with dying... when we placed our hands on her chest, I could feel her heart stop.

She doesn't analyze it. She just is.

I did...

Not at all. Language is a very complex matter. We can communicate but probably we cannot understand them. That's the issue — javi2541997

I understand my dog. She can even act! She was jealous when I paid attention to another dog. She acted as if her back leg was hurting suddenly. I understood.

There are no grounds to assume that the hubble volume is expanding into anything other than the unobservable 4-d universe that excompasses the hubble volume — 180 Proof

Except that it's expanding. The extra space that is created while expanding is just part of the higher dimensional space of which we are a sub. That's the explanation for dark energy.

OK, if you think so, then why do you think we cannot communicate with animals? — javi2541997

We can communicate with animals. We're a kind of animal ourselves.

That our 3d space is located on a higher dimensional space. If that 3d space propagates through that higher dimensional space, it seems the galaxies are receding from each other. If that space is negatively curved, even accelerated, if matter induced positive curvature drops below a threshold.

We are more complex than animals — javi2541997

We are animals who are free to create their own coat, communication means, and material reality.

wish our beautiful dogs would aware about themselves. — javi2541997

I pity your dogs if they're not self-aware. People nowadays are too much self-aware. Every creature is self aware.