So you're basically asking if computerization is an external form of human thought?

Duh.

Have you never seen Ghost in the Shell?

::After introducing yourself like this, you then proposed a bullshit theory with no proof, evidence, or resemblance of a thought put into it, and you expect me to take you seriously.

what i expect is that you give it some thought. give me facts why its not possible and then challenge yourself to a scenario in which it is possible.

::I don't really know how thought could be a dimension but whatever....

to me it seems as valid a thought as accepting how time can be a dimension.

::Okay, here's what I interpret that to mean: Are thoughts their own dimension, and are the electrical impulses found in computers also in that dimension?

::My answer: That makes no sense and you're stupid.

its only as stupid as completely disregarding it as a possibility. what makes a signal from my brain to my eyes any different from a signal from a CPU to to a webcam? they both use electrical data dont they? isnt the only thing that defines them is the "electric language" used?

At 7/9/11 10:42 PM, LeonOfBlain wrote:

I don't really know how thought could be a dimension but whatever....

to me it seems as valid a thought as accepting how time can be a dimension.

I've never heard of time being called a dimension in reference to matter

I don't know what OP takes, but I want that.

At 7/9/11 04:07 AM, psychicpebble wrote: penis.

Penises.

At 7/9/11 10:49 PM, Gobblemeister wrote:

At 7/9/11 10:42 PM, LeonOfBlain wrote:

I don't really know how thought could be a dimension but whatever....

to me it seems as valid a thought as accepting how time can be a dimension.

I've never heard of time being called a dimension in reference to matter

For as long as I can remember I've almost always heard of time being referred to as the fourth dimension. but i suppose to call it a dimension can open the door to all kinds of phenomena being called a dimension.

At 7/9/11 10:51 PM, slayer727 wrote: I mean what do you expect us to say. Since your can't really be answered, I suppose were just supposed to say "wow, that's deep man".

Wow, that's deep man.

not at all, man. what I expect is either a pro/con/maybe as to why it could be or cant be or even just your 2 cents on the matter. its easier to answer a question as a group than it is to come up with answers by yourself all the time.

At 7/9/11 10:57 PM, LeonOfBlain wrote:

For as long as I can remember I've almost always heard of time being referred to as the fourth dimension. but i suppose to call it a dimension can open the door to all kinds of phenomena being called a dimension.

Actually from what I recall in my Earth/Space class (its most likely innaccuarte or slighty incorrect but reasearch could clarify it) is that as an object moves fast enough is actually length descreases and scientists believe that length transfers into time which then slows it down. So in other words time is the 4th dimension because as far as they know the ratio to how length decreases and time increases(which slows it down) is always the same.

At 7/9/11 11:12 PM, Yukin wrote:

:time is the 4th dimension because as far as they know the ratio to how length decreases and time increases(which slows it down) is always the same.

so as an object approaches the speed of light does it lose its dimensions of width, height and depth?

At 7/9/11 04:10 AM, Blysk wrote: At first i thought you were serious, but upon further analyzation of your thesis, i concluded it makes no sense

its a goddamn pile of horseshit, that's what it is

This man is not to be trusted, he doesn't capitalize his "I"s.

brains are definably computers, electrons and neurons exist in the present dimensions, therefore they aren't another dimension.

At 7/10/11 12:23 AM, satanbrain wrote: brains are definably computers, electrons and neurons exist in the present dimensions, therefore they aren't another dimension.

so then would it be more accurate to say that consiousness exists at different energy levels of existing dimensions? this discussion all came about from a theory i heard about in the news of maybe our 3 or 4 dimensional universe was originally a 1 dimensional line.

At 7/9/11 10:57 PM, LeonOfBlain wrote: For as long as I can remember I've almost always heard of time being referred to as the fourth dimension. but i suppose to call it a dimension can open the door to all kinds of phenomena being called a dimension.

From what you've been saying, not just in this latest post, you seem to have the notion of dimensions of space time confused with the notion of dimensions in science fiction movies.

It's mathematics. You don't need to jump through a worm hole to get from the x axis to the y axis, the y axis to the z axis, the z axis to the 't' axis, or any other combination thereof.

And time is an axis due to its nature, not due simply to it existing as a phenomena. You're arguing an abstraction fallacy. For example: If I can say that apples have seeds, then I can say that all foods have seeds.

For the most part, you seem to be mashing words together. Hell, some of your sentences aren't even grammatically cogent, let alone semantically.

Is it really unclear to you whether an electrical charge can be understood mathematically? Because that's actually one of the questions you asked, though in terms you clearly thought sounded deeper.

I hope to god you haven't taken 6th grade science, or that you're trolling.

At 7/9/11 07:50 AM, i-am-ghey wrote: lol. you are high.

information stored and processed by the human brain is finite as the number of neurons are finite. in the same sense that you computer has limited storage capacity (in terms of bytes).

but my brain doesn't have bytes

At 7/10/11 02:47 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 7/9/11 10:57 PM, LeonOfBlain wrote: For as long as I can remember I've almost always heard of time being referred to as the fourth dimension. but i suppose to call it a dimension can open the door to all kinds of phenomena being called a dimension.

From what you've been saying, not just in this latest post, you seem to have the notion of dimensions of space time confused with the notion of dimensions in science fiction movies.

It's mathematics. You don't need to jump through a worm hole to get from the x axis to the y axis, the y axis to the z axis, the z axis to the 't' axis, or any other combination thereof.

And time is an axis due to its nature, not due simply to it existing as a phenomena. You're arguing an abstraction fallacy. For example: If I can say that apples have seeds, then I can say that all foods have seeds.

For the most part, you seem to be mashing words together. Hell, some of your sentences aren't even grammatically cogent, let alone semantically.

Is it really unclear to you whether an electrical charge can be understood mathematically? Because that's actually one of the questions you asked, though in terms you clearly thought sounded deeper.

I hope to god you haven't taken 6th grade science, or that you're trolling.

is it really so hard to believe any of this is up for questioning? I just want a greater understanding of concepts that I dont understand. You seem to have an understanding of dimensions so please if possible provide a basic description of what a dimension is. is it something that fundamentally affects all things? why is the argument that time may not be a dimension a valid argument? I understand why you're saying im jumping to some incorrect conclusions but I believe the best way to determine what something is is to figure out what it's not. when you rule out the wrong you're closer to what is right. this isnt an english class its a discussion. if you dont understand what im getting at just say so. that way i can attempt a clarification. please dont bash an attempt to understand a concept by insulting intelligence.

At 7/10/11 03:08 AM, JimChun7689 wrote: but my brain doesn't have bytes

i didn't say they are identical. just analogous, and a failed attempt at causing more confusion by posting something completely random.

and did someone just say the term 'fourth dimension'? in special relativity, the position vector can be written as (ict,x,y,z), but still time is time and space is space. they are not the same. the four dimensional space in special relativity is NOT an ordinary euclidean space, but a minkowski space. general relativity also has four dimensions consist of three spacial components and one time component, except it is meaningless to talk about proper distance between two places as the metric depends on time component as well.

more confusion.

At 7/10/11 04:15 AM, i-am-ghey wrote:

At 7/10/11 03:08 AM, JimChun7689 wrote: but my brain doesn't have bytes

i didn't say they are identical. just analogous, and a failed attempt at causing more confusion by posting something completely random.

and did someone just say the term 'fourth dimension'? in special relativity, the position vector can be written as (ict,x,y,z), but still time is time and space is space. they are not the same. the four dimensional space in special relativity is NOT an ordinary euclidean space, but a minkowski space. general relativity also has four dimensions consist of three spacial components and one time component, except it is meaningless to talk about proper distance between two places as the metric depends on time component as well.

more confusion.

Jesus christ!! someone finally gives me a term i can go look up and explore for myself!! lol i'm trying to go along and confirm all these things as i go along haha anyway can't you apply euclidean and minkowski concepts to video games and to a much lesser extent your own thoughts? for example lets pretend you are building a video game game couldnt you use these 4D coordinates to map a graphical particle (particle was at position (22, 14, 105) at time (5))? and lets say some radical situation came up where your dreams were a hyper reality like when someone is having a vivid dream or hallucinating and you could make accurate measurements in this hyper reality. the fake imaginary environments would provide an unstable euclidean space that exists between 4D events (fall asleep and wake up)

At 7/9/11 04:06 AM, LeonOfBlain wrote: is it not a similar if not the same dimension as the environment of electrical impulses we designed as computers?

If you define 'dimension' as related to physics, then no and it's just stupid.

for example lets pretend you are building a video game game couldnt you use these 4D coordinates to map a graphical particle (particle was at position (22, 14, 105) at time (5))?:

well. suppose your particle is lagrangian. you can describe its position in seven seperate variables, namely, t, (q_x, q_y, q_z), (v_x, v_y, v_z), where t=time, q_i=position along ith axis, v_i=velocities.

if your particle is moving through a magnetic field, it may produces radiation so that its motion is also dependent on its accelration.

what am i doing?

well. suppose your particle is lagrangian. you can describe its position in seven seperate variables, namely, t, (q_x, q_y, q_z), (v_x, v_y, v_z), where t=time, q_i=position along ith axis, v_i=velocities.

if your particle is moving through a magnetic field, it may produces radiation so that its motion is also dependent on its accelration.

if the particle is lagrangian lets say this particular particle is a classical test particle with newtonian gravity just because i'm not sure if other types of test particles are relevant to modern games. and how about the unstable euclidean space within hallucinations and dreams?

They got it all figured out, man.

At 7/10/11 05:12 AM, Andre wrote: Not only do I now hate you, but I have cut off my penis in confusion. Fuck you.

you're late to the party man most of us cut off our penises back when it was still punk! you're straight up no penis scene kid now. keep it punk man..... keep it punk.

At 7/10/11 03:26 AM, LeonOfBlain wrote: is it really so hard to believe any of this is up for questioning?

No, but thanks for shoving a false dilemma in my face. But I suppose it's rule one of any pretentious ass to immediately consider anyone particularly barbed with their criticism to be closed minded to the nth degree.

I just want a greater understanding of concepts that I dont understand. You seem to have an understanding of dimensions so please if possible provide a basic description of what a dimension is. is it something that fundamentally affects all things? why is the argument that time may not be a dimension a valid argument? I understand why you're saying im jumping to some incorrect conclusions but I believe the best way to determine what something is is to figure out what it's not.

If I handed you a shoe box and asked you to give me its dimensions, how would you respond?

when you rule out the wrong you're closer to what is right.

Knowledge and presumption may be finite, but no, the relationship you're establishing is flawed when presumption may be generated to a virtually infinite end.

this isnt an english class its a discussion.

Yes, why should you bother making coherent arguments? It's a discussion!

if you dont understand what im getting at just say so. that way i can attempt a clarification. please dont bash an attempt to understand a concept by insulting intelligence.

Alright.

"consciousness as well as the world within computers are the world within electricity are the same type of dimension."

Try this one again.

At 7/10/11 12:41 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

No, but thanks for shoving a false dilemma in my face. But I suppose it's rule one of any pretentious ass to immediately consider anyone particularly barbed with their criticism to be closed minded to the nth degree.

I didnt shove it in your face. you clicked on the message board of your own free will

If I handed you a shoe box and asked you to give me its dimensions, how would you respond?

I would've probably give you its length width and height

Knowledge and presumption may be finite, but no, the relationship you're establishing is flawed when presumption may be generated to a virtually infinite end.

Yes, why should you bother making coherent arguments? It's a discussion!

most people would just say "please clarify what youre getting at" if it was worded strange

if you dont understand what im getting at just say so. that way i can attempt a clarification. please dont bash an attempt to understand a concept by insulting intelligence.

Alright.

"consciousness as well as the world within computers are the world within electricity are the same type of dimension."

Try this one again.

read the posts between me and the guy talking about euclidean space. i'm not sure but i hope it helps to establish the concept. the concept should sound something like within electricity and some material (in computers it'd probably be silicon and electricity. in humans maybe something more like electricity and brain matter.) an imaginary euclidean space exists. does that make sense to you?

At 7/10/11 02:47 PM, LeonOfBlain wrote: I didnt shove it in your face. you clicked on the message board of your own free will

Really? And I'm suppose to take you seriously?

I call you out for a false dilemma, and your response is solely with regard to my ancillary characterization of your post - one which does not even necessarily mean what you took it to mean.

That's some slippery bullshit.

I would've probably give you its length width and height

Well. There you go. You've implicitly defined what a dimension is.

most people would just say "please clarify what youre getting at" if it was worded strange

This response follows from neither of the points you quoted prior to it.

I mean... please clarify how your reply is answering to either of the bits of my reply you quoted above it.

does that make sense to you?

No. Try it again with complete sentences and whole thoughts.

One again... I'm suppose to take you seriously? You know what my criticism was, and you came back with something even worse.