|
 |
|
| |
 |
Subjective Singularity
|
|
 |
| |
Great article. Living longer seems to go hand-in-hand with exploring and colonizing the Solar System. After all, what is one going to do with all the time?
In order to live, one has to have a purpose. In order to live BIG, one has to have a BIG purpose. When the purpose for one's existence is non-existent, I don't see the purpose for one existing.
Lastly, I can see the author's view that the definition of the Singularity might actually the moment we achieve immortality, collectively or severally. After all, the ability to live forever would certainly provide one with insights that could not be predicted in any way prior to such a state -- because one would be able to witness the unfolding of Universal events, time-scales that the Universe operates on in general yet occluded from mortals. Thus one would be able to see vast changes over the course of a Posthuman lifetime. Isn't this the definition of the Singularity anyway -- that technological changes are happening so fast that one cannot keep up with them in a lifetime. But if one had a lifetime to keep up with them, the Singularity would have happened in the observer, not in the observed. The Singularity would be a subjective event, not an objective event -- an event of stretched-out time, not an event of increased pace. And perhaps these are related anyway, for if a Posthuman Power had such an increased pace, to it, the normal pace of mere humans would seem an eternity.
Perhaps an immortal being, by definition, would transit all time in an instant, at least from the point of view of the unconscious or the dead. What I mean by this is: Have you ever been put under for an operation? You count backwards from 10 and suddenly you're AWAKENING -- not going unconscious -- in a dark quiet room! I was very surprised when I first had this experience. In other words, the act of going UNCONSCIOUS felt like, or felt meshed with, the act of AWAKENING! I have been thinking about this since 1986, wondering if they could be one in the same, or if this could be similar to death: the moment you DIE you become ALIVE or you AWAKEN. Perhaps immortality is sort of like going UNCONSCIOUS to death. So if an immortal being can transit all time in what might seem like an instant to a dead person, maybe a dead person might be able to transit all time in what seems like an eternity to an immortal person.
James Jaeger |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
Re: Subjective Singularity
|
|
|
| |
Joe,
> "genetically engineer more people to be homosexual."
:)
Or, genetically engineer more people to find immortality distasteful ...
Honestly, I think the immortality-seekers don't actually know what they seek.
The entire sense of "continuing individual identity" is nothing more than a momentary sensation, never anything more. Are you willing (say, during surgery) to be rendered completely unconscious for a few moments? If so, and you never wake up, that is really no different than "immortality", nor different than what you experience every day. The "you of the present moment" inherits a "sense of continuity" thanks to memories of past "moments" experienced by versions of "you" that are long gone. The "you" of the present moment only "looks forward" to a good tomorrow, but never gets to be there. Instead, some "future self" gets to experience tomorrow, and believe itself to be the continuence of the "you" of this moment.
I have tried to present thought-experiments to get the point of this across, some more lucid than others. Allow me to attempt another.
Imagine you are told you have only a few days left to live, and a magic genie happens by and says, "If you would like to experience "life" for another 100 years, I can grant that wish. The only caveat is that you will be transferred into the consciousness of some other person. You will wake up from bed as some other person, with all of their memories, and none of your own. You will believe yourself to be that person."
Go for it? You might think, "Well, why not? At least I wouldn't be dead. I will continue to experience "life".
But this is nonsense. Where would be the "I" in this version of "I would get to continue"? It is really no different than saying, "You will die, but don't worry, somewhere there are others who will continue to live."
It is all about memory, this sense of continuity. There is no psychic "self" that continues, not even for a moment. You eat well, and take care of your health today, so that someone else will enjoy your good health tomorrow morning when they wake up, and believe they are the "you" that fell asleep last night.
There is no "psychic continuity". Immortality is merely the "expectation" of endless tomorrows, and never the exercise of those tomorrows.
Come to realize this, and you will be as immortal as you will ever be.
Cheers! ____tony b____
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Population Formula?
|
|
|
| |
Grant,
I pretty much agree with you, but I might add we should place limits on "procreation rights." While I feel every human being has the right to procreate, I don't feel every human being has the right to OVER-procreate. We see much of this now. IMO, two children is enough for any two people -- one to replace the father's body and one to replace the mother's body.
I don't know what the capacity of a planet is, but we should damn well find out. . . and soon. If we end up screwing up this one before we can get other planets on-line, we're all in deep trouble.
One thing I have been toying around with is the idea of granting every human being a "license" to have X number of children -- X being proportionate to the global birth rate less the global death rate modified by sustainable population factors. I don't know what the exact formula would be (I'll leave that up to Tony B :), but once a prudent population is determined given ALL the factors, X could be assigned to each person, either universally, or within certain regions or countries.
Once X is determined, we might recognize that some people won't WANT to have ANY children whereas some will want MANY, at least two, or perhaps they would be quite satisfied with X. Thus I submit: why couldn't one sell their procreation rights to those who want more than X children? People sell their blood and bodies! No? This way those that wanted more children could have them, so long as they could AFFORD to HAVE them.
Procreation rights could also be purchased by richer people and donated to poorer people who might want more children but couldn't afford the procreation rights.
Such a transfer of procreation rights might keep everyone happy (happier) and give the planet's ecosystem a breather. Commoditizing procreation rights could also end up being a nightmare if not done properly or ethically. People could end up being "farmed" just so their procreation rights could be harvested. So perhaps a cap on what they should cost might be in order.
As long as I'm on this subject; I have often felt that some people are not fit to be parents. Every time I hear of someone being executed by the state -- other than being abhorred at being forcibly made a party to state-sanctioned murder -- I can't help realizing that that person (usually a man) was once a DEAR little boy . . . before his irresponsible, criminal or drug-ridden "parents" fucked him up. You can say it's society or heredity, blah, blah, blah. . . but please don't -- unless YOU have a little boy and are a parent, because you're simply NOT qualified to comment. The reason you're not qualified to comment, is because you have no way of experiencing the effects of parenting. Parenting CANNOT be observed objectively, it can ONLY be experienced SUBJECTIVELY. And the reason for this is because at least half of parenting is the EMOTION, and the DYNAMICS of that emotion, of dealing with, guiding and nurturing developing minds -- NON AI minds. You can put all the 24-hr video cameras you want on a "typical" family to "empirically" observe them for your sociology project -- but that's mostly horse, because there is NO WAY to understand the subjective dynamics of the intimate relationship between a parent and a child.
I realize that there are exceptions to what I have said, were good parents end up with little boys that ultimately get gassed by "society" -- but I bet they are one in a thousand. Just because the parents "look" good, look sane, look able -- never forget: THE MOST INSANE AND DANGEROUS PEOPLE ARE NEVER INSITUTIONALIZED. THEY'RE ON THE STREETS. IN THE CORPORATE SUITE. AT THE TRIGGER. IN THE HOME. And yes, THEY'RE "PARENTS" as well.
As we develop other worlds to inhabit and longevity increases, the procreation laws (as well as society's killing laws for capital punishment and Rothschild-instigate war) should be modified. A formula should be devised for X. If Drake can devise a formula for the potential number of extraterrestrial civilizations out there, a population density formula should be cake.
James Jaeger
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: Subjective Singularity
|
|
|
| |
James,
> "Who or what was looking at that cat?"
I would have to answer much as Thomas has.
There IS a continuing "thing", a dynamic process that senses, and lays down memories, and retrieves and interacts with those memories. That "thing" was looking at the cat, "the whole time". But my personal "sense of being" was replaced continuously during that cat-walkthrough. In this sense, the "me" that began looking at the cat was not the "me" that finished.
There was a continuing process that supported the "continuing-self-sensation".
But that continuing "process-thing" is selfless. It supports a sequence of sensations, each sensation a complex melding of memory and external stimuli together. This melding gives rise to a "sense of being and continuity" by virtue of those memories.
There is both something to be gained, and lost, in comparing the "body and mind" to a "computer and program". There are rough analogies, physical processor to "brain", and program to "thoughts occuring in the brain", with each perfoming "memory retrieval. But in this view, (computer-wise) memories are "inert", and only retrieved to be "examined", almost distinct from the imagined "examining process".
With the mind/brain, I believe that "memories" are so "at the fingertips of process" that the distinction breaks down. The memories are not "inert", but rather dynamically interacting with and restructuring "process" continuously, and we lose something in the translation if we think solely of "process driving memory/data retrieval", when it is just as much "memory driving process".
Cheers! ____tony b____
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Who Sees the Cat?
|
|
|
| |
>There IS a continuing "thing", a dynamic process that senses, and lays down memories, and retrieves and interacts with those memories. That "thing" was looking at the cat, "the whole time".
I think you're making this more complicated than it needs to be.
Question: Who was looking at the cat?
Answer: I was looking at the cat.
Question: Who or what is "I"
Answer: "I" is me, a thing.
So this thing called I, or me, is capable of ACTION such as: processing, laying down, retrieving, interacting, looking.
Well if our "sense of being" is nothing but our memories, how can these memories be capable of action, especially when there is no continuum and it's just "all about memory, this sense of continuity"? In order to have action, there MUST be at least an appearance of a continuum. A movie is an apparent continuum made up of static pictures (memories), but the static pictures are given "life" because some observer is able to remain stationary as they pass by the gate of the projector. No? If the observer were in the same motion or of the same "stuff" as the observed, I don't see how there could be differentiation, hence any observation of a continuum. If I, the observer, is the same "stuff" as the memories, the pictures, then what differentiates the two, what makes the potential difference between a static and a dynamic we know as "reality." I don't see how "reality", or life for that matter, could exist if there isn't a differentiation between the observed and the observer.
Again, if memories are capable of action, how could a continuum of motion be observed unless the "observer" were static or motionless? If such observer of motion were a static, how could it also be characterized as a process or a program, both of which are dynamic?
>But my personal "sense of being" was replaced continuously during that cat-walkthrough. In this sense, the "me" that began looking at the cat was not the "me" that finished.
Why not just say that YOU, the being, the I, the entity that is aware that you are aware, is looking at a collection of mental image pictures that is your "mind." Why invoke all sorts of other machinery and processes to explain what might be just two distinct entities: YOU and your MIND? If the MIND is knowable, perhaps the YOU is NOT knowable. This arrangement seems to strike some sort of an equilibrium, that of possibly: in LIFE you can know only your MIND (a collection of memories expressed in energy-pictures) but not your BEINGNESS (your self), yet after life, if any after-life, you can know only your BEINGNESS but not your MIND (thus the apparent amnesia of death).
James Jaeger
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: Subjective Singularity
|
|
|
| |
Here's one example of what's happening:
Mexico: Growing opposition to industrial shrimp farming
Shrimp, considered as the country’s pink gold, became the focus of Mexico’s export-oriented fishing activity because of the importance and economic value of the crustacean in the international --particularly US-- market. Five Mexican states along the Pacific coast (Sonora, Sinaloa, Nayarit, Oaxaca, and Chiapas) and two along the east coast (Tamaulipas and Campeche) have developed shrimp aquaculture.
Sinaloa is currently the state with the largest number of shrimp farms and the highest production levels of cultivated shrimp and where environmental problems associated with the industry’s development are most prominent. The rapid proliferation in the number of shrimp farms is affecting the coastal ecosystems and the rural communities that depend on the resources provided by these ecosystems.
Despite existing regulations, there is a consensus that the aquaculture industry is transforming the coastal ecosystems of Sinaloa in a way that is affecting the livelihood and quality of life for residents of the many rural coastal communities.
The coastal lagoons and estuaries that characterize Sinaloa contain a diversity of habitats including mangrove forests, salt-marshes, inter-tidal pools, swamps, freshwater inner lagoons, and brackish and seawater systems. A key environmental concern is the impact of shrimp farm construction on ecosystems. This issue is most prominent in the southern region of the state, where a single lagoon system can contain many shrimp farms. During the rainy season, the region’s lagoons are habitats and nurseries for postlarvae and a variety of fishery resources, which form the basis of the commercial fishing activity and are also exploited by the rural coastal communities as common property. When these lagoons dry up with the end of the rains, they have traditionally been mined for salt both by individuals gathering it for home consumption as well as by some cooperatives.
Today, in order to guarantee a permanent water supply to the shrimp farms, canals have been built to connect the lagoons with estuaries or the ocean, leading to permanent flooding. The government has granted concessions, mostly to private investors, to build shrimp farms in these coastal lagoons. Moreover, the concessions have converted a highly diverse coastal ecosystem into a monocrop system. This has resulted in a greater marginalization and displacement of the social sector and in an increased distrust of the government agencies in charge of developing the aquaculture industry. By transforming common-property lagoons into a privately owned resource, the concessions have exacerbated Sinaloa’s social conflicts.
The discharge from shrimp ponds is considered to be one of the more recent and serious direct sources of pollution in Sinaloa’s coastal waters. Shrimp-farm wastewater contains large amounts of organic material, fertilizers, chemicals, and antibiotics, which cause eutrophication in the lagoons and estuarine systems. In Sinaloa, wastewater from shrimp aquaculture activities has been linked to the formation of phytoplankton blooms, eutrophication, and the development of red tides in coastal marine waters
An additional environmental concern is the impact of the industry on mangrove ecosystems. In Mexico, there are approximately 123 coastal lagoons, most bordered by mangrove swamps. Mexico is home to four mangrove species: red (Rhizophora mangle), white (Laguncunaria racemosa), black (Avicennia germinans), and buttonwood (Conocarpus erecta). Mexico’s mangrove forests cover approximately 660,000 hectares. Sinaloa’s mangrove forests serve as nesting and feeding grounds for a large number of resident and migratory birds and as nurseries for shrimp, which form the basis of the inshore fishing industry. The trees are also used by the rural population as firewood and lumber. Over time, mangrove ecosystems in Sinaloa have been transformed by mining, agriculture, and the cattle industry. Currently, the shrimp aquaculture industry is also contributing to the ecological transformation of these ecosystems. It has been estimated that by 1994, 10,000 hectares of mangrove forests were destroyed to build shrimp ponds. Untreated shrimp-pond effluents are also contributing to the damage.
The global concern over the negative impact of commercial shrimp farming on the environment and humans has fueled the emergence of various grassroots social movements to resist the expansion of the industry. Among the causes igniting this resistance are local people’s concerns with increasing pollution, and the loss of common-pool resources. In Mexico, resistance to the industry’s expansion is slowly starting to appear and for the most part, this opposition has been developed by several of the fishing cooperatives in southern Sinaloa and northern Nayarit. Activities of fishing cooperatives in these states have included confrontations with personnel of shrimp farms and negotiations with government agencies in order to limit the expansion of the industry.
Among the most important grassroots organizations to oppose large-scale shrimp aquaculture near fishing grounds is the Federation of Fishing Cooperatives of Southern Sinaloa (The "Guerreros del Sur" --Warriors of the South), which comprises 21 fishing cooperatives with a total of 2,000 fishermen. In 1998, the Guerreros del Sur openly opposed the construction of a shrimp farm in their granted fishing area, claiming that seven cooperatives would no longer be able to fish in the area because the shrimp farm would invade their space. The Federation had previously prevented the construction of a shrimp farm in another nearby community. In that case, the majority of the members of this community supported the effort, and the shrimp farm was not constructed. Members of this Federation have also actively opposed the collection of wild shrimp larvae in coastal areas near their fishing grounds. In some instances, they showed up with truncheons to confront marine biologists and other shrimp farms personnel to demand they stop harvesting shrimp larvae. A number of fishing cooperatives in northern Nayarit have also opposed the construction of a shrimp farm near their fishing areas. In this case the fishermen have accused a private company of destroying large tracts of mangroves with their shrimp-pond operations. The fishing cooperatives were joined by an environmental organization, Grupo Manglar.
As more people become aware of the potential effects of the shrimp aquaculture industry, the fishing cooperatives and community groups opposing the expansion of the industry will get more support. There is no doubt that industrial aquaculture farming has had important ecological and social impacts, which in the long run may lead to the further erosion of the coastal and marine ecology and the ability of rural households to make a living.
Source: WRM's bulletin Nº 51, October 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Scientists & Technologists in Office
|
|
|
| |
>Unless something comes along that is smarter than we are (the singularity?) I don't see much hope for us beyond 2020. . . .What we are looking at is a world of depleted resources, regardless of where we live.
Grant,
This is a reason more science-oriented people MUST run for government positions and especially Congress. Right now Congress is filled with a bunch of lawyers that don't know much about science. Lawyers don't even represent the People. Scientists and technologists better-represent the People than lawyers as there are far more of them for starters.
The voice of reason needs to be heard, and reason comes from science. We need to stop allowing the welfare of the World to hijacked by a bunch of career politicians, lawyers and the corporate MAKING MONEY-mentality.
The way scientists and technologists can VICE their way into power is simple. Every time some lawyer, politician or corporate-type needs your services, grant them, but grant them WITH STRINGS ATTACHED. Let that client or employer know that your continued cooperation, insights and expertise demand that your voice be heard and counted in the political and corporate governance arena.
If they won't, or don't, play that game, cut them off. The world RUNS on science and technology. Without these folks, and people like us here on this forum, the powers-that-be are powerless. You hold the ultimate power even though they are studied in strategy and guile.
Just because they wield the paycheck, scientists and technologists MUST NOT BACK DOWN.
As an extreme example, the MDs in Philadelphia finally got so pissed off at the ridiculously high costs of insurance they were being forced to pay by the political/corporate machinery -- they revolted: either the system is changed or people will be left in the streets outside the hospitals to DIE. WHO has the ultimate power? The scientists and technologists, and I include physicians in this group because they are applied scientist/technologists when you get right down to it.
Run for Congress. Run for President. Become CEO. Don't just sit in a back-room lab and wish for a better World. REFUSE to allow the political/corporate mentality to build the world any further UNLESS YOU have a say in exactly WHAT is being built!
James Jaeger
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: Who Sees the Cat? ... and Immortality
|
|
|
| |
James,
You are right, in that I could simply have said, "I saw the cat".
But the point of my posting, as it relates to "immortality", is that my "sense of being in the world" exists only in each present moment. In this sense, the "I" that began to see the cat is not the "I" that is writing this post about it.
My central thesis is that immortality is the "Expectation of unending tomorrows", and ONLY the expectation.
Imagine that you were convinced, by some magic, that you actually had gained immortality, would live forever. Great, you go out and do all sorts of things, and at some point you feel like you want to rest, say, take a short nap. So you do, ... and suppose you never wake up.
Where is the "you" that would regret such an outcome? Certainly not the non-future you(s) that will not exist. Only the present you, that feels this would be "cheating the imagined future you(s) of existing."
That is my point about immortality. The present "you" never gets to "be there", one way or the other. You only get to "expect to be there".
Cheers! ____tony b____ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: Scientists & Technologists in Office
|
|
|
| |
>James, I see two problems with your solution. First of all, you have to get scientists who are seldom interested in anything but science to become interested enough in politics to run for office. Then there's the weeding out process. Many people who can deal with science have a problem dealing with people. It requires a certain EQ (emotional IQ) to be a people person rather than a science person.
Yes, they are perfect examples of idiot-savants --a person or machine that is exceedingly good at just one thing (or a very narrow range of functions). John Nash is an idiot-savant person. The IBM computer (Deep Blue), that beat Gary Kasparov in chess in 1997, is an idiot-savant machine. The type of people that I am suggesting run for office are more like Carl Sagan than John Nash.
>After you go through a selection and recruitment program, you need to convince people that it makes sense to vote for a scientist to fill a political office.
We need to re-educate people as to what kinds of people they NEED in office, NOT what kinds of people they WANT in office. In life you don't always get what you WHAT, but you usually get what you NEED. It is time PEOPLE remind SOCIETY that this applies to THEM collectively as well -- given Society does not have a death wish.
>What prior experience would such a person have to use as a basis for choosing him/her?
His entire scientific career is his "prior experience." But you're right, such a person might not have other political skills, such as how to lie and cheat, screw interns and spin the English language . . . but alas, I guess we will just have to suffer through without these "qualities" in our representatives.
>Most voters want a representative who will bring jobs and money to their community. They seldom take kindly to people who tell them they will have to tighten their belts and stop using so much of the world's resources.
Again, People will have to re-educate themselves on how to PROPERLY evaluate political candidates. That this is not being done is another failure of the media and a prime reason I constantly reference the book, IT’S THE MEDIA, STUPID.(1) Just as, several decades back, American car manufactures had to re-educate themselves on how to PROPERLY evaluate the car market so they could produce cars that could compete with the Japanese, people will have to undergo a re-evaluation of what qualities are REALLY important to their well-being. If the planet goes down, then their hometown will go down. People need to get the bigger picture. And if they don’t, they will perish. It’s up to the more intelligent members of Society to ram this through. Democracy is ONLY the most prudent form of government when you have an informed and educated electorate. When you have an ignorant and stupid electorate, or a short-sighted electorate, Democracy is probably the most insidious form of "government."(2)
>So between finding good candidates who are qualified and eager to enter the world of politics and convincing voters to vote for what they call "nerds," the time it will take to implement your solution may be longer than the time we have left on earth.
Not at all. As soon as the MEDIA is handled the problem will resolve because informed and educated people are effective. The MEDIA is, of course, the first issue that must get handled as it prevent all the other issues from being resolved due to the paucity of intelligent and practical discourse available. Again, the People are collectively very smart -- so long as they have proper and complete information. Garbage in = garbage out. Media garbage in = moron electorate out.
>I would be happy to talk to some scientists today, but I really don't know any. They are not a social bunch and seldom hang around with people who don't share their particular interests.
That’s funny, I know many scientists, in fact about one quarter of my friends are scientists, and they are some of the most outgoing and social people of all. (The other three quarters are basically writers, lawyers and filmmakers, a motley bunch :). Plus Grant, if you don’t know any scientists, how can you really be sure they would not be suitable for political office?
>The kinds of people who put up money to get politicians elected would also have to be convinced that this is a good investment for them.
The kinds of people who put up money to get politicians elected need to be shot , not convinced. :)
>What they look for is people like G.W. Bush who aren't too smart but have a lot of charisma and a reputation based on prior electability.
Ho hum. Not that you’re wrong Grant. You’re an idiot-savant at telling it like it is. :) I’m looking for general and specific ways to change it to a situation where a more robust and safe world might exist.
>They will be surrounded by people like the vice president and secretary of state to do the actual thinking for them.
Yep. A moron-in-the-middle with nothing but idiot-savants all around. Could this be worse than a government full of John Nash clones?
>Anyone can run for office, but it takes a lot of the "right stuff" to actually get voted into office.
Unfortunately!
James Jaeger
---------------------------
(1) See IT'S THE MEDIA, STUPID, a book report at http://www.mecfilms.com/universe/articles/stupid.htm
(2) See "Hollywood’s Disdain for Democracy" at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/disdain.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: Who Sees the Cat? ... and Immortality
|
|
|
| |
>James, You are right, in that I could simply have said, "I saw the cat".
Okay.
>But the point of my posting, as it relates to "immortality", is that my "sense of being in the world" exists only in each present moment. In this sense, the "I" that began to see the cat is not the "I" that is writing this post about it. My central thesis is that immortality is the "Expectation of unending tomorrows", and ONLY the expectation
What I understand of your central thesis is this (and please correct me if I'm not getting it): There is only the present time. The "I" of the person exists only in this present time. This "I" will be different tomorrow because with each passing moment, our brains develop new layers of awareness that the older versions of "I" did not, and could not, have(1). Thus, each current version of "I" can only "imagine" the future, not GO THERE, because only the new versions of "I," the more intelligent ones, can "go" there. Thus the future is but an "expectation," not a temporal event.
This thesis works for me and actually might work even if there were some sort of a transcendent element to the entity we call a human being. For instance, let's say you are a SOUL who has, as one of his possessions, a MIND. And this mind is nothing more than a database of mental pictures of everything you have experienced in your life. And it is YOU that ARE this SOUL, this BEING that lives forever. You ARE a SOUL or SPIRIT as opposed to the idea that you HAVE a soul or spirit. Since the terms SOUL and SPIRIT have so much baggage, let me just roll them into the term TRANSCENDENT BEING. . . or just BEING for short. Thus you are a BEING with a MIND and a BODY.
Obviously I have no better idea than any one else if any of this is true, or what's true in this arena, but let's just kick some of this around some more.
One of the recent developments that has got me wondering if in fact we just might be immortal BEINGS(2) is the recent advancements in Superstring- and M-theory. M-Theory postulates, actually requires, more dimensions than just 3 in order to work. IF it's true, that there ARE more dimensions than just H x W x L, THEN perhaps a component of human existence utilizes these other dimensions. If so, this might explain some of the yapping about out-of-body experiences, exteriorization, astro-projection, life after death, near-death experiences, apparitions, and other phenomenon. I don't think you can just write off most of the Human race as crazy when they claim these things exist or they have experienced them. Although I have never had any experiences with any of the above, and have no empirical reason to believe that any of them exist, I am still willing to retain the possibility of certain validity. I WAS willing to write it all off until I booked up a little on M-Theory several years ago. Now I'm in neutral.
So my point is this: If you ARE a BEING that persists through time and this BEING has the ability to review the various mental image pictures of his existence, then that BEING is the same BEING now as in the future. Some say that this BEING is actually GOD (in other words YOU are actually GOD) and this BEING, in order to have a "game" called life, occludes all of his knowledge about existence. IF this is true, THEN your thesis falls completely apart because the "I" of today is the same "I" of tomorrow, the only difference being that, instead of LEARNING MORE, the "I" of tomorrow has OCCLUDED LESS of his universal knowingness of all things. In other words, you start out knowing everything because you are actually GOD playing the role of this little piece of meat down on a planet (known as a Human Being), but in order to have some fun with your power -- you have to "forget" you HAVE that power. Thus you "become" so-called Human. Logically this all makes sense, because if you relegate all power and all ability to the idea of GOD, AND GOD actually exists, THEN such a BEING would be able to do and be anywhere, and appear as anything, including a Human BEING with a meat body on a watery planet. As such a BEING you would also be able to create all other Human BEINGS as "extras" and "bit payers" in your Universe or Reality.
>Imagine that you were convinced, by some magic, that you actually had gained immortality, would live forever. Great, you go out and do all sorts of things, and at some point you feel like you want to rest, say, take a short nap. So you do, ... and suppose you never wake up.
Where is the "you" that would regret such an outcome? Certainly not the non-future you(s) that will not exist. Only the present you, that feels this would be "cheating the imagined future you(s) of existing."
Depends on what you want to define "you" as. Does your MIND never wake up? Does your BODY never wake up? Which MIND? Which BODY? Suppose you are operating many MINDS and many BODIES or all MINDS and all BODIES, a distinct possibility if GOD were pretending to be a BEING or the Human BEING you happened to be using to perceive reality with.
>That is my point about immortality. The present "you" never gets to "be there", one way or the other. You only get to "expect to be there".
Provided the present you isn't GOD or a BEING that transcends physical death.
James Jaeger
>Cheers! ____tony b____
----------------------------------
(1) Yudkowsky goes into some of this in "Staring into the Singularity" at http://sysopmind.com/singularity.html
(2) And by this I mean, we actually experience the future after body-death with the same collection of mental image pictures. We go there and we are more intelligent because we have available a larger collection of pictures, i.e., experiences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: Scientists & Technologists in Office
|
|
|
| |
>That’s funny, I know many scientists, in fact about one quarter of my friends are scientists, and they are some of the most outgoing and social people of all. (The other three quarters are basically writers, lawyers and filmmakers, a motley bunch :). Plus Grant, if you don’t know any scientists, how can you really be sure they would not be suitable for political office?
It's not that I haven't met a lot of scientists, I did, after all, graduate from UCSD. But a man in my financial situation doesn't do lunch in La Jolla or contribute to the funds scientific minds are fond of. Politicians aren't the only ones who seek the company of the rich and/or famous. Scientists live by the grant or die by the grant, but have little use for the Grant.
Cheers,
Grant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: Who Sees the Cat? ... and Immortality
|
|
|
| |
James,
Yes, you get the gist of my thesis, except one can equally view it as "there is only the present, and I am always there", as well as "time passes, the present exists but for a moment, and what I habitually call 'me' is never the same me, nor the I that does the calling.
I think of "sense of selfness" (and I mean the sensation, not necessarily any underlying reality) is like a wave traveling across the ocean. You can follow it with your eye, and "see" it continue and move, yet if if passes from blue water, through a narrow section of red water, and then back to blue, the wave becomes only momentarily red. The "redness" does not get carried along with the wavefront, only the "time-space location of the form" is traveling. The wave is essentially different substance at every moment.
Of course, if there is a soul, or soul-like transcendence of materia, then this could exist "through time", but there is no particualr evidence of such (despite similarities among OOB experiences, etc. They can have varied explanations.)
And if there were a soul-like existence, there is little need to "do anything" to be immortal, right?
I guess my problem with the soul-like view (as in, "one per individual", at least) is that I see no mechanism whereby new life, new births, get a "new soul". It would be, rather, that there is only really one such entity (god as you might describe it). Then, you and I are all the same manifestation of consciousness, and when I die, the rest of humanity is my immortality, so to speak.
But to argue that, somehow, this "sense of being the same Tony" continues, I cannot see it. For otherwise, I would right now feel like the "same Fred", or the "same Sally", or a billion others.
Alternately, if my conscious awareness is the continuation of some past Fred, but with no memories of being that Fred, then I cannot see what good this is to the Fred that has passed. That Fred cannot appreciate "being this Tony."
It is THAT sense of continuity which seems incongruous (and which the immortality-seekers want so desperately.)
It is only the "present experiencer" who maintains a sense of identity, who anticipates future experiences, and upon seeing death, anticipates the end of experiencing. And this is true, whether or not there is an actual-continuing as an underlying reality.
We often consider and debate the possible nature of the underlying reality, but this may be akin to what someone posted several months back, "trying to turn on the light so fast, you can see what the room looked like in the dark, before the light spoils it..." In essense, an "unexperienceable" thing.
Cheers! ____tony b____
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Motion: An Illusion?
|
|
|
| |
>Yes, you get the gist of my thesis, except one can equally view it as "there is only the present, and I am always there", as well as "time passes, the present exists but for a moment, and what I habitually call 'me' is never the same me, nor the I that does the calling.
Yes. I don't really believe that TIME is a dimension. Time is only a unit of change of position of particles. As "time" passes, what you are really saying is, all the atoms that make up your body and brain are moving and changing position while the entire body itself sits on a larger "particle" that moves around the sun also changing its position and generating increments of motion we have sliced up into the calendar and hours, minutes and seconds, etc, etc. So the YOU of yesterday is simply a different YOU than the YOU of today because all the atoms and subatomic particles that comprise you have changed positions thus creating the variations of patterns that are each successive "YOU." This all makes sense, but let me take it a step further (and in fact you have with your next paragraph in a way I was going to agree with).
>I think of "sense of selfness" (and I mean the sensation, not necessarily any underlying reality) is like a wave traveling across the ocean. You can follow it with your eye, and "see" it continue and move, yet if it passes from blue water, through a narrow section of red water, and then back to blue, the wave becomes only momentarily red. The "redness" does not get carried along with the wave front, only the "time-space location of the form" is traveling. The wave is essentially different substance at every moment.
This is EXACTLY right. The wave doesn't "move" it only generates the appearance of movement. So let's take this idea a step farther. Let's say those atoms I stated above which change position (move) thus generating the illusion of so-called time, let's say that they don't move at all. Let's say the 1-dimentional strings that are postulated to comprise the subatomic particles don't MOVE at all, but simply provide a universal substrate upon which an all-encompassing illusion of motion is manifest. Sort of like the sea in your analogy, except the "sea" here is the entire fabric of space, matter and energy. Thus MOTION is a total ILLUSION. Everything that seems like it moves, from the earth's revolution around the sun to electrons "orbiting" the nucleus of atoms. It's all just wave fronts passing through giving the illusion of motion, hence the illusion of TIME. If this is true, if this is the larger reality (and I believe it is), then the YOU of yesterday, as defined by the patterns your neural net happened to be formed into, exhibits only an illusion of change in the YOU of today because your neural net only manifest an illusion of motion, hence time. The substrate, never changed, it only gave an ongoing illusion of a continuum of change. It is this substrate that I am interested in and how it relates to us as BEINGS or us as entities that are able to perceive and operate in a Universe. Are we related to this substrate? Do we exist in or above or around this substrate? Do we interact with this substrate? Are WE this substrate? A part of it? Is this substrate us? Is this substrate what is referred to as God or universal intelligence? Are we a part of universal intelligence? These are all questions that have to be answered?
>Of course, if there is a soul, or soul-like transcendence of material, then this could exist "through time", but there is no particular evidence of such (despite similarities among OOB experiences, etc. They can have varied explanations.)
Right, the evidence is almost always, or always, subjective. I believe that objective evidence IS possible if the phenomenon IS real. Your definition of a Universe was very good, in that you said any place you could go to FROM this Universe (as in "escape from" this Universe into "another" Universe) is actually the same Universe. Boy is that a mind-twister to shut up all these multi-Universe freaks that are doing nothing but complicating the idea and definition of a Universe. The Universe is the Universe.
>And if there were a soul-like existence, there is little need to "do anything" to be immortal, right?
One would think. Maybe this is the joker -- all us poor saps here on the MIND-X are trying to figure out a way to reach immortality when we are already immortal and can be no otherwise.
>I guess my problem with the soul-like view (as in, "one per individual", at least) is that I see no mechanism whereby new life, new births, get a "new soul". It would be, rather, that there is only really one such entity (god as you might describe it). Then, you and I are all the same manifestation of consciousness, and when I die, the rest of humanity is my immortality, so to speak.
I would say in answer to your Q about "no mechanism whereby new life, new births, get a "new soul"" that there is no such THING as a NEW soul. All souls exist and have always existed, even before the advent of this particular Universe. In other words, in this particular cosmology, the Universe was created by souls. In other words WE collectively, you and I created this Universe and then, in order to have a game, forgot that we created it. If, in fact we are collectively or severally God, then, by definition, this would be possible because there is nothing that God cannot do. Thus, the pivotal question becomes IS there any such thing AS God. If the answer to this is yes, and the qualities in infinite ability are given to such an entity, then we have to expect any and all outcomes or possibilities -- including the possibility that each of us are GOD or are a part of GOD. For a scientist, all this still leaves one limp. I'm just going through the logic as best I can.
>But to argue that, somehow, this "sense of being the same Tony" continues, I cannot see it. For otherwise, I would right now feel like the "same Fred", or the "same Sally", or a billion others.
Alternately, if my conscious awareness is the continuation of some past Fred, but with no memories of being that Fred, then I cannot see what good this is to the Fred that has passed. That Fred cannot appreciate "being this Tony."
I don't know the answer to this, but one thing that has always concerned me and that is, how is data passed on from being to being? Once we die, once our brain rots in the ground, then technically all that was learned by that brain while alive is gone (except that data which was passed from father to child, genetically or verbally, or to others in the form of verbal and/or written life-long communications). So the question becomes for me, if these are the only ways data can be passed, is that sufficient for civilization to continue? We all know how sloppy and misunderstood communication is from human to human. Would a Universe, or a GOD, if any, leave the advancement of species and civilization and possibly the very Universe itself up to the vagaries of during-life communication? Or would some other device exist? Could all the data a human acquires in a lifetime get quantum encoded the moment before death and transferred out of the dying brain? If so where is the data transferred? Could the data be transferred? I don't see why not as we would only be talking about terabytes of data to a Human's memory? Perhaps, upon death the life-record is transferred directly to the substrate of the Universe at the one-dimensional string level where it is dispersed to all other living organisms or uploaded to new organisms taking physical form (i.e. babies). Since 98 percent of the genome seems to be unused, perhaps these are just write-only files that hold the data record of an eternity of lifetimes of any given BEING.
>It is THAT sense of continuity which seems incongruous (and which the immortality-seekers want so desperately.) It is only the "present experiencer" who maintains a sense of identity, who anticipates future experiences, and upon seeing death, anticipates the end of experiencing. And this is true, whether or not there is an actual-continuing as an underlying reality.
I don't know.
>We often consider and debate the possible nature of the underlying reality, but this may be akin to what someone posted several months back, "trying to turn on the light so fast, you can see what the room looked like in the dark, before the light spoils it..." In essense, an "unexperienceable" thing.
I am optimistic that the underlying reality will begin to be revealed if they can find the super-partners that they will be looking for in the new Supercollider being built in Switzerland. If these are found, them this is evidence that Superstring theory is moving in the right direction. If it is, everything will change and we will throw out most of science and physics as we know it today.
James Jaeger
>Cheers! ____tony b____
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: Scientists & Technologists in Office
|
|
|
| |
>James, I've always felt finance was important. I just don't think endless diatribes about the Fed are.
Grant, I just looked up the word "diatribe" in the American College Dictionary to MAKE SURE I understand what it means, and it says "a bitter and violent denunciation." So I ask myself, have I been bitter about the Fed? Have I been violent in my denounciations of it? And the answer I come up with is: true I have been denounciating it often, and true, I probably DO feel a little bitter about the idea that these guys that formed it, and who profit from it, do so at my expense and the expense of others. But you know Grant, most of the time my lanugage and tone in connection with the Fed can't really be characterized as "diatribe." The reason for this is because my language and tone have mostly been of calm reason with the intention to educate and back up all my assertions with studies and reference materials. Someone who is just out there spewing diatribe, does not do this. I am what you call concerned and persistent. If you characterize this as diatribe, then you will also have to characterize Collin Powell's concern and persistence in making people aware about Iraq's threat as diatribe.
>The way China suckered money from the biggest corporations in the world started them on the road to scientific accomplishment in fields besides war and domination of their neighbors. Our own domination of the money markets in the world arena is what made the U.S. the only world power still in operation. The communists, blinded by Marxist theory, just couldn't see the value of money and money markets. Deng xiaoping woke them up and got his people to join the club that presently runs the world as we know it. IMO, the third world war was fought with money and we won. Now we are going into the fourth world war and it seems to be based on faith. The Muslims are getting behind religious faith and the Christian West is getting behind science and technology. I'm betting on the West again. Killing people is a stupid way to try and save them. Ultimately, however, it's a war between genes and memes. Money is a meme we use to control the direction of people's energy. Muslims and Christians try to do the same thing with faith and fanaticism. But the path of faith is only rewarded in a heaven we can't get into until we're dead and unable to enjoy the joke that there's no tomorrow.
All I can say is: wow! Profound; and I don't actually disagree with what you're saying. I still say the Fed has to go however. Is there any chance you will read the documents posted at http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/oldupdates/2002/0913.htm and http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/oldupdates/2002/0920.htm to see when the bond market is going to crash and what the Fed will have to do with this?
James
>Cheers, Grant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: Scientists & Technologists in Office
|
|
|
| |
James,
I'm sorry if the word "diatribe" makes you uncomfortable. It is just how the endless posting of attacks on the Fed look to me. It's a personal reaction that may not be shared by others. Just because I see it that way doesn't make it either true or false. It just reflects my own personal reaction.
The Fed is going to go, as will many other institutions in the upheaval that will follow the destruction of our environment. If we achieve an overarching AI, the Fed is still likely to be a victim of its own uselessnes in a world where money takes on new meanings and uses. Democracy as we know it (or don't know it) will probably suffer the same fate. No matter what I do or don't do, the chages we are rushing toward will create a world we are unlikely to recognize, any more than our ancestors a mere two or three hundred years ago would recognize the world we live in today.
I suspect the bond market, as well as every other market we have, will crash more than once in the fairly near future. But the cause is bigger than the Fed and will no doubt resemble the pain of a growing body as some parts grow faster or slower than others. It can't be helped. It's just part of the process. We're reaching a point in the growth of our society where we either change or die. There are forces fighting against change who are willing to die for that cause. Others are fighting to bring it about. That's the war of genes and memes I was referring to.
Change has always brought war with it. People fight for what they believe in, even when what they believe in no longer exists. The weapons and the territories are what have changed. Today, it's a battle for intellectual territory. Be thankful that men are the only creatures to have created such a land because all animals fight for their territory. The forces of Hollywood are fighting just as hard for the territory they created as the forces of the internet are fighting to wrest it from them and create their own territory out of silicon and minds. You're in the middle of that war, but you don't seem to have taken a side in it yet.
The weapons in the new wars are being created in the court rooms and the minds of men and women. Every time some corporation or agency that wants to keep things like they are attacks through the courts, some hacker invents a new way to grab intellectual property and pass it around to his buddies and neighbors. The same process is going to take place in biotechnology and nanotechnology.
As matter and life become tools of memetic forces, the idea of value will change the way we look at everything. People will find they know the price of everything as it changes from day to day and the value of nothing because science and technology will change what has value just as it is changing the nature of nature.
Even now, what will make you richer, a new idea that changes the world or a ton of gold? Bill Gates knew the answer. World changing ideas used to occur once every thousand years. Then it became every couple of hundred years. In the near future, it will be every day. That's the era we refer to here as the singularity.
World changing ideas automatically bring with them a certain amount of pain and destruction as the old is replaced by the new. Instead of periodic upheavals washing over our society, they will become constant. Life will resemble a roller coaster ride. Markets will rise and fall like changes in the weather. New markets will be created that destroy old ones and leave people who invested in the old pennyless while making kings (relatively speaking) of those who gambled on the new.
People who can ride the waves instead of being crushed while trying to face them head on will rise to the top. Those who cling to the rocks and try to hang on to the little spot they now inhabit will be swept aside. Look at Isael and Palestine. They are killing each other to dominate a piece of earth while the world passes them by and time washes over them.
After they've finished killing each other, some other group will come behind them and use that land for the betterment of the world rather than the fanatic desires of a few who refuse to see that the territory available to the mind is infinite while that available to the body barely lasts a lifetime. And for people trying to kill each other, it's a short lifetime at that.
Well, that was my diatribe. It's getting too long and is probably of no interest to anyone but myself. Time to wrap it up.
Cheers,
Grant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: Scientists & Technologists in Office
|
|
|
| |
Very good points Grant. You are a wise being.
James
---------------------------
>James, I'm sorry if the word "diatribe" makes you uncomfortable. It is just how the endless posting of attacks on the Fed look to me. It's a personal reaction that may not be shared by others. Just because I see it that way doesn't make it either true or false. It just reflects my own personal reaction.
The Fed is going to go, as will many other institutions in the upheaval that will follow the destruction of our environment. If we achieve an overarching AI, the Fed is still likely to be a victim of its own uselessnes in a world where money takes on new meanings and uses. Democracy as we know it (or don't know it) will probably suffer the same fate. No matter what I do or don't do, the chages we are rushing toward will create a world we are unlikely to recognize, any more than our ancestors a mere two or three hundred years ago would recognize the world we live in today.
I suspect the bond market, as well as every other market we have, will crash more than once in the fairly near future. But the cause is bigger than the Fed and will no doubt resemble the pain of a growing body as some parts grow faster or slower than others. It can't be helped. It's just part of the process. We're reaching a point in the growth of our society where we either change or die. There are forces fighting against change who are willing to die for that cause. Others are fighting to bring it about. That's the war of genes and memes I was referring to.
Change has always brought war with it. People fight for what they believe in, even when what they believe in no longer exists. The weapons and the territories are what have changed. Today, it's a battle for intellectual territory. Be thankful that men are the only creatures to have created such a land because all animals fight for their territory. The forces of Hollywood are fighting just as hard for the territory they created as the forces of the internet are fighting to wrest it from them and create their own territory out of silicon and minds. You're in the middle of that war, but you don't seem to have taken a side in it yet.
The weapons in the new wars are being created in the court rooms and the minds of men and women. Every time some corporation or agency that wants to keep things like they are attacks through the courts, some hacker invents a new way to grab intellectual property and pass it around to his buddies and neighbors. The same process is going to take place in biotechnology and nanotechnology.
As matter and life become tools of memetic forces, the idea of value will change the way we look at everything. People will find they know the price of everything as it changes from day to day and the value of nothing because science and technology will change what has value just as it is changing the nature of nature.
Even now, what will make you richer, a new idea that changes the world or a ton of gold? Bill Gates knew the answer. World changing ideas used to occur once every thousand years. Then it became every couple of hundred years. In the near future, it will be every day. That's the era we refer to here as the singularity.
World changing ideas automatically bring with them a certain amount of pain and destruction as the old is replaced by the new. Instead of periodic upheavals washing over our society, they will become constant. Life will resemble a roller coaster ride. Markets will rise and fall like changes in the weather. New markets will be created that destroy old ones and leave people who invested in the old pennyless while making kings (relatively speaking) of those who gambled on the new.
People who can ride the waves instead of being crushed while trying to face them head on will rise to the top. Those who cling to the rocks and try to hang on to the little spot they now inhabit will be swept aside. Look at Isael and Palestine. They are killing each other to dominate a piece of earth while the world passes them by and time washes over them.
After they've finished killing each other, some other group will come behind them and use that land for the betterment of the world rather than the fanatic desires of a few who refuse to see that the territory available to the mind is infinite while that available to the body barely lasts a lifetime. And for people trying to kill each other, it's a short lifetime at that.
Well, that was my diatribe. It's getting too long and is probably of no interest to anyone but myself. Time to wrap it up.
Cheers,
Grant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: The Transhuman Singularity
|
|
|
| |
The Last Will and Testament of
Joseph M. Graham Jr.
Apt. 26D
1701 Ocean Ave.
Asbury Park, New Jersey 07712 United States
Social Security Disability Insurance.
The proposal which requires the least advancement of technology goes like this: the patient’s brain (possibly entire head) is made solid, either by perfusing with (for example) paraffin, or by freezing to liquid nitrogen temperatures. Next, the brain is cut into very thin slices. Each slice is scanned by a computer using very high-resolution instruments (e.g., the electron microscope). The computer uses this data to reconstruct the patient’s brain circuitry in an artificial substrate (probably dedicated brain-simulating hardware). The simulation is activated, and the patient finds herself or himself in a shiny new body.
This procedure requires relatively modest extensions of current technology. Anatomical reconstruction from serial sections has been done for many years. Currently, only a very tiny piece of tissue can be scanned in this way at the resolution needed for circuit reconstruction, and the process is both slow and labor-intensive. Researchers are currently working to automate the process, increase the speed, and increase the sample size. Eventually these developments should permit the scanning of an entire brain — but there’s still a long way to go to that point (unless, of course, someone starts pouring lots of money into development).
As a word of caution, it may not be enough to capture just the structure of the neurons and connections; functionally relevant information is undoubtedly contained in, for example, the ratios of chemicals in the synapses and the distribution of ion channels in the cell membrane. Staining techniques will probably permit all relevant variables to be read during the scan, but it’s something to keep in mind.
1/27/97 . . . . . . . Joe Strout
Its now 2009 And I feel that we could Do all the above without cutting the Brain to get the resolution need to copy the Brain/Mind of ones Brain. Maybe T-Rays or microscope with pico scale.-resolution Laser microtome
Microtome
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A microtome is a mechanical instrument used to cut biological specimens into transparent thin sections for microscopic examination. Microtomes use steel, glass, or diamond blades depending upon the specimen being sliced and the desired thickness of the sections being cut. Steel blades are used to prepare sections of animal or plant tissues for light microscopy histology. Glass knives are used to slice sections for light microscopy and to slice very thin sections for electron microscopy. Industrial grade diamond knives are used to slice hard materials such as bone, teeth and plant matter for both light microscopy and for electron microscopy. Gem quality diamond knives are used for slicing thin sections for electron microscopy.
The most common applications of microtomes are:
* Traditional histological technique: tissues are hardened by replacing water with paraffin. The tissue is then cut in the microtome at thicknesses varying from 2 to 25 µm (micrometers) thick. From there the tissue can be mounted on a microscope slide, stained with appropriate aqueous dye(s) after prior removal of the paraffin, and examined using a light microscope. See histology for more details.
* Cryosection: water-rich tissues are hardened by freezing and cut in the frozen state with a freezing microtome or microtome-cryostat; sections are stained and examined with a light microscope. This technique is much faster than traditional histology (5 minutes vs 16 hours) and is used in conjunction with medical procedures to achieve a quick diagnosis. Cryosections can also be used in immunohistochemistry as freezing tissue stops degradation of tissue faster than using a fixative and does not alter or mask its chemical composition as much.
* Electron microscopy: after embedding tissues in epoxy resin, a microtome equipped with a glass or gem grade diamond knife is used to cut very thin sections (typically 60 to 100 nanometers). Sections are stained with an aqueous solution of an appropriate heavy metal salt and examined with a transmission electron microscope. This instrument is often called an ultramicrotome. The ultramicrotome is also used with its glass knife or an industrial grade diamond knife to cut survey sections prior to thin sectioning. These survey sections are generally 0.5 to 1 micrometer thick and are mounted on a glass slide and stained to locate areas of interest under a light microscope prior to thin sectioning for the TEM. Thin sectioning for the TEM is often done with a gem quality diamond knife.
* Botanical microtomy: hard materials like wood, bone and leather require a sledge microtome. These microtomes have heavier blades and cannot cut as thin as a regular microtome.
* Spectroscopy, especially FTIR or infra-red spectroscopy, where thin polymer sections are needed in order that the infra-red beam will penetrate the sample under examination. It is normal to cut samples to between 20 and 100 micrometres in thickness. For more detailed analysis of much smaller areas in a thin section, FTIR microscopy can be used for sample inspection.
Microtome blades are extremely sharp, and should be handled with great care. Safety precautions should be taken in order to avoid any contact with the cutting edge of the blade. If one should accidentally drop NEVER try to catch it with the unprotected hand!
A recent development is the laser microtome, which cuts with a femtosecond laser instead of a mechanical knife. This method is contact-free and does not require sample preparation techniques. The laser microtome has the ability to slice almost every tissue in its native state. Depending on the material being processed, slice thicknesses of 10 to 100 µm are feasible.
Microtome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
microscopy enters the picometer scale
July 24th, 2008 in Physics / Physics
EnlargeUsing electron microscope methods of a hitherto unknown accuracy,
scientists from Forschungszentrum Juelich have succeeded in locally
demonstrating polarization in the ferroelectric PbZr0.2Ti0.8O3 and measuring it
atom by atom. The broken line forms the boundary of two areas with different
electrical polarization marked by the arrows. This is due to the fact that the
atoms (Pb: lead; Z: zircon; Ti: titanium; O: oxygen) are displaced from their
positions and therefore their electrical charges cannot compensate for each
other. On the left, the oxygen atoms are displaced 38 pm downwards, and on the
right to the same degree upwards out of the zircon/titanium atomic row. This row
itself is displaced vertically by 10 pm from the center line between the lead
atoms. In order to write information in applications for data storage, the
boundary between these two areas of different polarization directions is
displaced to the left or to the right so that only one polarization direction
exists in the material. Image: Forschungszentrum Juelich
Jülich scientists have succeeded in precisely measuring atomic spacings down to
a few picometres using new methods in ultrahigh-resolution electron microscopy.
This makes it possible to find out decisive parameters determining the physical
properties of materials directly on an atomic level in a microscope. Knut Urban
from Forschungszentrum Jülich, a member of the Helmholtz Association, reports on
this in the latest issue (25 July) of the scientific high-impact journal
Science.
Progress in research in the area of physics is very frequently connected to an
increase in the accuracy of measurements, which help researchers to track
natural phenomena. With the aid of new methods in electron optics, researchers
were able to microscopically measure atomic displacements precisely to a few
picometres. A picometre corresponds to a billionth of a millimetre a distance
that is one hundred times smaller than the diameter of an atom.
This is one of the highlights that Knut Urban, director of the Ernst
Ruska-Centre in Jülich, reports on in Science as part of a review of ten years
of electron microscopy with aberration-corrected lenses.
Jülich scientists investigated, for example, the configuration of atoms in
orthogonal grain boundaries of the oxide superconductor YBa2Cu3O7. These atoms
mark the boundary between two areas of the crystalline material with atomic
structures that are tilted at an angle of exactly 90° to each other. From
microscopic images taken under different conditions, the physicists succeeded in
using computers to calculate the quantum-mechanical wave function of the
electrons, which served as a basis for determining the exact position of the
atoms.
In doing so, it became apparent that the relatively heavy atomic species barium,
copper and yttrium are systematically displaced a few picometres from their
ideal position in the grain boundary and that the leighter oxygen atoms follow
this displacement. This provides an explanation for the attenuation of
superconducting properties, which can be observed when electric current flows
over such a grain boundary. This phenomenon is undesired if the superconductor
is intended to be used for a loss-free current transport. However, it is useful
for the construction of so-called SQUIDs (superconducting quantum interference
devices), which exploit the magnetic field dependency of this disturbance to
measure smallest magnetic fields, for example, to measure brain waves
(magnetoencephalography).
Displacements of a few picometres decide on a whole number of physical
properties, which are of eminent importance for technology. Another example is
the ferroelectricity of titanates materials. Here, the electrical charges of the
individual types of atoms inside the building blocks of crystals, the unit
cells, cannot fully compensate for each other as they are not arranged in the
necessary symmetry.
Therefore, electric dipoles are formed inside the unit cells, which add up over
a larger crystal area to form the so-called polarisation. This is used to write
information bits. An example is PbZr0.2Ti0.8O3 which is used in chip cards for
data storage. With the aid of new electron optical methods, atomic displacements
can be measured atom by atom thus making it possible to determine local
polarisation for the first time.
Knut Urban explains: “This is the beginning of a new physics of materials which
enables researchers to determine physical parameters and properties in the nano
range through highly precise measurements of the atomic spacings. This will also
provide clues on how these properties may be manipulated in order to gain new
functions and better functional performance.”
Source: Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres
I want to copy My Brain matter and put every scan into a Hlographi Data Base’
Joseph M. Graham Jr.
I hope someone will set this up for Me.
Because I can not.
|
|
|
|
|
| |