It would obviously do no good to try to argue your personal beliefs, any more than it would to argue the personal beliefs of a fundamentalist Christian.

So from what you say, may I assume that you believe remote viewing and OBE to be effectively delusion?

I do not think you have to explain remote data within a data analyzing device by saying that the data analyzing device got up and went to the location of the data to get the data.

No. I think that this is an assumption which is not the simplest process to achieve the same result.

I think its more likely that the data is what was mobile. After all this is how we are communicating now which if anything is a proof of concept even if not a direct correlation.

If data is "mobile" then that means that everything gives off waves that can be interpreted at a distance and that proves that everything is interconnected, in that respect. (Sharing or information exchanges.)

But I don't think anything is mobile in that sense. Time and space is an illusion of the mind and part of the holographic reality just as it is in your dreams.

OBE is done simply by placing your attention on something and then viewing it holographically, as if you were there in body. Remote viewing, same thing, only you retain your sense of body location while you view something at a distance.

Usually if you can download you can also upload and when that day is here we will be in trouble.

I don't see why the data moving is any simpler than the analyzer moving. In fact, I think the analyzer moving is actually simpler. It only requires that the analayzer be self-propelled. Whereas if the data moves, then the data must have a separate entity providing the propulsion.

Unless you postulate that the data itself is capable of self-propulsion, in which case you'd have to supply some reason as to why the data moved the way it did. (Kinda like why the wave decided to collapse into a partical at a specific location. <ouch, my heads hurts>)

To answer that, you could postulate a type of "two way communication" scenario that exactly parallels our forum communication: An "originator" sends a "command" out to a "target". When the command reaches the target, the target reacts and resonds by sending a "reply" back to the originator.

There's a lot of "splainin to do" about exactly what happened at the point where the command met the target, but overall the scanrio does parallel the forum communication quite acurately and seems to be a model that could work for RV/OBE too.

Not necessarily. JB you speak of holograms like they are magic. Where would the hologram get its data from?

How would that data be sent to the projector of said hologram, the word hologram does not fix the constraints.

______________

Sky you are trying to theorize a new concept, I am not. I am using the internet as my example. (edit: which after rereading obviously you get and acknowledged)

Do you know much about the internet, or technology and how the internet works? I am not being condescending I am asking to get a sense of your level of technical awareness to know where to go with this line of thought.

I can guarantee its much easier to stream or packet up data, then it would be to have a gazillion computers fly around on strings and pulleys. BOTH systems would require an infrastructure, but data is light and simple, data analyzing systems are not simple and usually much bigger, heavier, and expensive then data alone.

The reason the internet is the way it is, is because its the simplest way we could do it and get the functionality we need . .. . I dont know why anything else would be different.
"As simple as possible but not simpler" -Albert Einstein

Also what tends to happen in conversations like this (about things not well known such as OBE) is its assumed that things that do not directly interact with matter as we know it are given a pass on structure, like they are structureless, but that is absurd, anything that can carry data would require a medium by which to carry it, just as your essence or whatever you think "you" are would also require a medium and would need to be formed of something that could retain the data and processing systems used to maintain said entity.

Don't give anything a pass on structure . . . because if you do .. . the conversation becomes absurd quick. (absurd in the sense of not logically consistent)

That does not mean you cant pull that card, its just the card that signals when the conversation has passed its expiration date for poor logical bushy.

There is no such thing as magic Billy. (Just science that is not yet understood.) I get my poop on the holographic model from Pribram and Bohm.

But the implications are very extraordinary. I'm sure a lot of people will look at them as magic.

Pribram's assertion that our brains construct objects pales beside another of Bohm's conclusions: That we even construct space and time.

From my spiritual studies I was told that time and space exist inside the "universal mind." Now these respected researcher's are saying some very similar things.



"Holonomic brain theory

The holonomic brain theory, originated by Karl Pribram and initially developed in collaboration with David Bohm, models cognitive function as being guided by a matrix of neurological wave interference patterns situated temporally between holographic Gestalt perception and discrete, affective, quantum vectors derived from reward anticipation potentials.

Pribram was originally struck by the similarity of the hologram idea and Bohm's idea of the implicate order in physics, and contacted him for colaboration. In particular, the fact that information about an image point is distributed throughout the hologram, such that each piece of the hologram contains some information about the entire image, seemed suggestive to Pribram about how the brain could encode memories. (Pribram, 1987). Pribram was encouraged in this line of speculation by the fact that DeValois and DeValois (1980) had found that "the spatial frequency encoding displayed by cells of the visual cortex was best described as a Fourier transform of the input pattern." (Pribram, 1987) This holographic idea lead to the coining of the term "holonomic" to describe the idea in wider contexts than just holograms."

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Holonomic-brain-theory [/quote}



I have not gotten into the scientific details but here is some cut and paste info with a link to some other reading suggestions.


Holonomic model

Pribram's holonomic model, developed in collaboration with quantum physicist David Bohm, theorizes that memory/information is stored not in cells, but rather in wave interference patterns.

Pribram was drawn to this conclusion by two facts:


1. There are visual cortex response functions that correspond to Gabor functions, which in turn are related to hologram image functions.
2. Drastic lesions can be made in animal brains which reduce, but do not extinguish memories (training), as demonstrated by Karl Lashley in the 1920s.

To formulate his model, Pribram utilized Fourier analysis, based on the Fourier Theorem, a variation of calculus that transforms complex patterns into component sine waves. Some believe that Pribram's theory also explains how the human brain can store so many memories in the engram in such limited space. Pribram believes the brain operates according to the same mathematical principles as a hologram. Bohm has suggested these wave forms may compose hologram-like organization.

For a the rest of the article:

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Karl-H.-Pribram

Trust me on this folks.If the world doesn't get blown up by us within the next 50 to 100 years,(most of) humanity will be living within an internet-like virtual reality. I am 100% sure of this.

Well if this reality is holographic in nature and if all the memory of it is stored in wave interference patterns, there may be an exact copy of it on a disk somewhere, so if it gets blown up, don't worry. Its probably backed up and can easily be restored.

Hypothalamus

brain beats mind, it's like rock on scissors

An interesting question JB and one that I think is even more complex.

Information seems to be stored throughout the body in the muscle and connective tissue... I'd probably go so far as to say that the whole body is a big storage device.

As to the brain/mind question ... my initial thoughts are that the brain is like the hardware and the mind is like the software. Can a person have one without the other? ... hmmm I shall have to ponder further ...

I like the question

I agree. Cells have memory.

It is also very possible that 'matter' is made up of standing waves and stored information.

Minds are what brains do.

In my 25 years as a Software Engineer I’ve met a few people that understand the low-level workings of the internet better than me. But only a few.

As I said, the internet analogy could work. But to me it’s significantly more complicated than the “moving observer” hypothesis.

In fact, any explanation that accepts the observation at face value (e.g. seeing something from a remote location) will have some difficult times with the very foundations of current physics. (But then QM has done that already so, maybe they’re related? )


To me, being logically consistent simply means that it doesn’t contradict its own postulates and that those postulates don’t contradict observation.

So I would amend that slightly. Replace “logically” with “scientifically”. It’s not scientifically consistent because it contradicts the postulates of science (i.e. “all things have structure”).

But “all things have structure” and “some things do not have structure” are both postulates. (i.e. neither is falsifiable)

So if we start with the postulate that there can be no thing that does not have structure, then of course we cannot “logically” accept anything that appears to be without structure, regardless of any observation to the contrary.

On the other hand, if we start with the postulate that there can be things that do not have structure, we can also accept that there can be things that do have structure. Win-win.

But denying the veracity of an observation solely because that observation contradicts a postulate, is what is absurd to me – especially when there are thousands of accounts of the same observation.


I’m honestly not trying to “pull a card” on you. I’m trying to offer a logical explanation for something (many things actually) that science cannot (or at least does not) explain.

It’s not “illogical”. It’s just “unscientific”. And it’s unscientific for the sole reason that it starts with different postulates than does science.



Yes, that’s true, I was trying to theorize a new concept.

So since the internet analogy is an existing concept, let’s look at RV with your internet analogy as the hypothesis. How would the “two-way communication” work?

Consider someone looking at a rock from 1,000 miles away. How would the two-way communication hypothesis work in this situation? The person sends a request to the rock and the rock sends back visual information about its environment? (Not from its own location mind you, but from a location that is different from that of either the person or the rock.)

Or take my own personal experience for example, where I was looking at my body from about 6 feet in front of it: I sent a request message to an arbitrary point in space and that point in space receives it and sends back visual data that represents what things look like from its location?

Ummm … Personally, I like the “moving observer” hypothesis better.

There is a similar “television” analogy where perceptions are constantly being broadcast and those broadcasts are being picked up by the remote observers. But that would require that inanimate objects be capable of broadcasting perceptions.

I still like the “moving observer” hypothesis better.

(Of course you’re perfectly entitled to pull your own card of “he’s not really observing what he says he’s observing”. But that’s no fun. )

I guess we all better hope so......

information is stored in the brain. it has been demonstrated many times that an injury to part of the brain can destroy vey specific information. the brain has been extensively mapped to identify areas of function by physical location.

it is already possible to extract information from the brain.
just ask someone knowledgeable a question.



eventually it will become possible to extract a great deal of information from the brain even after death by examination of the neural connections and simulation of the neural dynamics. artifical learning has been achieved in artificial non-biological neural networks.

what one perceives as the mind is self-awareness and recognition of thought patterns in others as well through the use of one's brain. this is in part instinctual and occurs to some degree in all communicating species. also it is learned and developed to the point where we have professionals (psychiatrists and sociologists, politicians, scientists and engineers, poets, artists, etc.) whose central function involves conception of the minds of others.
but it is necessary to have such communication for all creatures due to interactions of life.

a mind is not located anywhere. it is a function not an object.

it may be possible for someone to have a brain and be completely unaware of themselves or others. these are the
mindless people. mostly they congregate on the mingle2 website but they don't go on dates.



it may also be possible for something to have a mind but not a biological brain. this is the province of artificial
intelligence and thinking machines. but the real question
is do they dream of electric sheep?

But does that show that information is stored in the brain or does that show that information is interpreted and acted upon by the brain?

Anyone that does bodywork sees emotional release and memories triggered when facia or muscle is manipulated or released...

Practitioners of yoga, have experienced many releases of stored information ... memory ... emotion ... from muscles and connective tissue ... when in a pose ...

Muscle fibers twitch and jump in very specific locations when people are engaged in talk therapy. It does not appear to be random ...

An acupuncture needle in a location may have no effect on me but profound effect on you depending upon the nature of the information held there ...


Perhaps without a brain there is no way to interpret or verbalize the information but I don't believe that the totality of my life experience is squished in a little box of grey matter ...

I am no science gurl but experience and observation would seem to dictate otherwise in my 'mind' ...

...still pondering ...

That is said with a lot of authority, but I must disagree anyway. I’m not sure exactly what is meant by “information”, but I don’t believe that it has ever been proved that destroying brain cells destroys memory. If the point is that brain trauma can diminish our ability to recall memories, then I would agree. But, losing the ability to recall memory does not mean that the memory no longer exists, any more than a broken television means that the television signals no longer exist. It only means that you can’t see them with that television.

I would point out that there are many ways to diminish one’s ability to recall memories without inducing trauma to the brain. There are various types of drugs that can do that. Actually, any type of trauma that includes a loss of, or diminished, consciousness, can do it. And there are types of memory loss that have nothing whatsoever to do with any physical trauma of any kind.

In short, we don’t even know what memory is much less how it’s stored. Yes, there are those who insist, with a lot of authority, that their hypotheses are fact. But an inability to recall a memory does not automatically mean that that memory no longer exists. This is very easily demonstrated by the simple example of being unable to recall something for a time and then recalling it at a later time. The memory always existed, regardless of the ability to recall it.


Again I must disagree, if for no other reason than that the very word “mind” is a noun, not a verb.

It is true that one may define a word any way one wishes. And in doing so, one may exclude or include whatever one wishes in the new definition.

But the word is the “map” not the “territory”. And changing the map does not change the territory. It only makes it more difficult to understand both the map and the territory.

So if the mind is not an object, then what is the “thing” that accesses memories and performs calculations and makes decisions and forms opinions and imagines and thinks? What is the subject for all those predicates? There cannot be an action without an object. So what is the object?

If we can no longer use the one noun that has been used for centuries, what noun should we use instead?

Here are some interesting studies I came across.

Song Birds help explain Brain timing.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081117134339.htm

Brain reorganizes to adjust for loss of vision.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081120130541.htm

Memory loss tied to brain volume
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081006180515.htm

Hot flashes linked to forgetfulness.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080616175905.htm

Calpain Inhibitors Never Forget: Improving Memory In Alzheimer's Disease Mice
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080701185115.htm

__________________

Just some fun stuff.

Memory loss Blunted by active education
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081110164044.htm

Memory loss linked to poor diet
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080619112040.htm

Memory formation and storage
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080423171537.htm