Dr. Eben Alexander, NDE Science Wins Out |504|

Absolutely not.
Completely not like this.
I didn't mean any correlation for the "warehouse" with our human's memory.
I'm a bit frustrated that I completely failed in making anyone understand what I mean.
I didn't say "human's memory". I simply meant "memory" as in a record, or data, a place where data of various kinds resides, and can be recalled and used by the system ( whatever your system is ). So I probably understand you fine, but you just don't think I do. The "models" in your "warehouse" constitute stored data. The "warehouse" ( if it exists at all ) is essentially a data storage device or system ( whatever label you want to put on it ). If that's not the case, then you're just not getting the idea across because your using the wrong words, in which case we need to figure out a better translation.

You would have to explain to me how your "warehouse" is different than a storage system of some kind. Maybe you mean a variable due to something like the uncertainty principle or the Many Worlds Interpretation? That would mean that there isn't actually any "warehouse" or storage system in your model. It's just an analogy to help convey your point, in which case you might as well just call it the Many Worlds Interpretation.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/
 
Last edited:
I didn't say "human's memory". I simply meant "memory" as in a record, or data, a place where data of various kinds resides, and can be recalled and used by the system ( whatever your system is ). So I probably understand you fine, but you just don't think I do. The "models" in your "warehouse" constitute stored data. The "warehouse" ( if it exists at all ) is essentially a data storage device or system ( whatever label you want to put on it ). If that's not the case, then you're just not getting the idea across because your using the wrong words, in which case we need to figure out a better translation.

You would have to explain to me how your "warehouse" is different than a storage system of some kind. Maybe you mean a variable due to something like the uncertainty principle or the Many Worlds Interpretation? That would mean that there isn't actually any "warehouse" or storage system in your model. It's just an analogy to help convey your point, in which case you might as well just call it the Many Worlds Interpretation.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/
Absolutely fine!
If you didn't mean that my idea of "warehouse" is a human's memories, then it's great! That's correct you totally understand me.
And sorry that I misunderstood your calling "warehouse" as a "memory".
Also thank you for the extended material link to read!

I exactly mean the warehouse is a record, a data, a storage place where data of various kinds resides, and can be recalled and used by the system - called by THE SYSTEM not any human being - reused and servicing for different RRHs traversing through it and bumping different data frames inside of it.
I also mean the warehouse is a prerequisite of the existence of our "self", but only one of the prerequisites, if there were just only this warehouse, nothing more, then we wouldn't have been existent, as I said the information - the data this warehouse stores is not equal to us.

I completely agree your mentioning that some remote information can be fetched or transferred to a person by some mechanism without a need that this person's self leaves the body to exist separately, this is another story though. Also, that addresses the problem of the distance, in addition, long time ago in this very forum I expressed the idea that those information can also be cached somewhere while the person is in coma and unconscious, and the reading of those information can be postponed, waiting for this person recovering from coma, but this person's self needs to recover from coma soon or later to read those data, otherwise those data were just stored for a while but no one will read them and those data will eventually be "vaporized" and disappear.

If I could have time, I would like to explain what would the human's memories mean in my hypothesis, the human's memories are also not equal to our "self", its only a part of the status information in the 3 dimensional universe models which our RRH either bumped into or not.

Thank you for exchange it's great that you seem to understand me or at least didn't misunderstand my warehouse as human memories. I'm so happy on this. Sorry again and thank you!
 
Last edited:
One key gist of my hypothetical model is: the Creator created the "warehouse" and the "RRH"s separately, and our "self" doesn't come into existence immediately after the construction of warehouse being done, it is the activity of Creator letting one RRH passing through the warehouse and bumping into 3 dimensional models, that yields and maintains the existence of our "self".

Reader of my article would have a sense that, the "RRH" in my hypothetical model is redundant and meaningless, why our "self" doesn't come into existence right after the construction of warehouse being done? Why importing a concept of "RRH" from thin air or nowhere, and for no reason?

I conceive and import the concept of "RRH" for a reason which, in order for it to be explained, let us discuss another question first.

Consider, if scientists ultimately find all the relationships between the substances constituting our consciousness and our thoughts, feelings, emotions, behaviors, etcetera, they will be able to happily declare this conclusion: there can be a person thinking this way, feeling this way, emoting this way, behaving this way, providing his/her body substances are in these statuses.

For example, if one day in the future scientists ultimately have researched clearly that all those my organs, cells, nerves, or even including the quarks and bosons and the joined electrical magnetic fields or some more advanced physics concepts, would account for my thoughts, feelings, emotions, behaviors, in ways they have discovered, the scientists since then can declare that there can be a person thinking this way, feeling this way, emoting this way, behaving this way, providing the substances constituting this person are in these statuses, however, the scientists will still be unable to answer the question: why that person is me?

Consider that if there had been another person who is not me, being in exactly the same statuses of mine, feeling and behaving in exactly the same way of mine, then this scenario wouldn't violate scientists' ultimate discovery, and I would have never been existent, there had been another person who existed in place of me. So, why me?

One explanation is, there can be only one this "me" possibly existed. That is to say, as long as a group of substances constituting a person is in exactly those statuses, this person must be thinking that way, feeling that way, etcetera, and because there can only be one such person, and as I see, that person has already been me, then there can't be another person to replace me, so that must be me.

If we accept this explanation, then another question ensues, say, in a point of time I feel a bit angry, and scientists declare that it is my cells generating a chemical substance in 0.517 ounce which caused me that degree of angry, then the question is, why "me" is not a person whose cells generated 0.518 ounce and who feels a bit more angry? Then this explanation would say, there is another person whose cells generated 0.518 ounce and who feels that bit more angry, and as you, that person is unique, wherever cells generated 0.518 ounce, he must be there, just as wherever cells generated 0.517 ounce, it must be you.

OK, fine, if we further accept this explanation, then there must be a third person similar to me but whose cells generated 0.519, and a fourth person similar to me but whose cells generated 0.520, and a fifth person similar to me but whose cells generated 0.521, and so on and so on, then one more question occurs again, why "me" is in exactly 0.517, not 0.516, 0.518, or 0.666, blah blah blah blah?

Let us come back to my hypothetical model, then you can see the above questions have a new explanation, my whole hypothetical model suggests a total separation of our "self" and the "statuses information of a group of substances". Each of the "person information" of version 0.516, 0.517, 0.518 and so on exists in their own static 3 dimensional universe model respectively, aligned with that point of time on the time ruler axis in the warehouse, but those static 3 dimensional universe models and the different versions of "person information" are all dead, none of them is equal to my "self", but they exist there quietly forever, waiting for an RRH to bump into them, or for more RRHs, or for even infinite number of RRHs.

The Creator created me as a part of ONE and ONLY ONE RRH, then sent this RRH to pass through that warehouse, at that point against the time ruler axis, this RRH bumps into that specific one 3 dimensional universe model in which this person information is in exactly 0.517 version, so the above questions are all explained.

In my hypothetical model, the Creator can send infinite number of different RRHs to follow different route, as well as exactly the same route, thus there can even be infinite number of RRHs bumping into person information in 0.517 version, among which my "self" is only one of many, and all are different "self"s.

Review the start of this post of mine - I purposefully separate the Creator's creation of "the essence of our self" and "the statuses information of a group of substances in a 3 dimensional universe model" - the statuses information is not "us" and holds no self's existence whilst our self's existence is not to be accounted by just a set of statuses information - giving several puzzles an explanation. I don't mean this explanation is better, or correct, or is the case of fact, I think and wish it just should be there for people to consider and discuss.

There are still many many concepts I didn't address clearly or meanings I didn't properly convey, for example, when I used the English tense like the Creator created, have done something, I didn't mean them in our human concept of time, the Creator should have a higher dimension chronicle, but in my hypothetical model the Creator does have a before-after logic - or should I say steps order logic - in the creation - creates warehouse first, then creates RRHs, then let RRHs run through the warehouse.

I have no time to continue writing this in details today.
 
Last edited:
One key gist of my hypothetical model is: the Creator created the "warehouse" and the "RRH"s separately, and our "self" doesn't come into existence immediately after the construction of warehouse being done, it is the activity of Creator letting one RRH passing through the warehouse and bumping into 3 dimensional models, that yields and maintains the existence of our "self".

Reader of my article would have a sense that, the "RRH" in my hypothetical model is redundant and meaningless, why our "self" doesn't come into existence right after the construction of warehouse being done? Why importing a concept of "RRH" from thin air or nowhere, and for no reason?
I'm pretty sure I understand your concept of the RRH. But am curious as to what the RRH stands for? I'm assuming it's something in your native language. It's interesting how your model parallels that of a computational system. The way I'm imagining it is that the warehouse is the memory bank, and each point represents a gate, and time represents each clock cycle, and the RRH is the system's access function. So on each clock cycle the RRH accesses and activates a gate, and successive activations of these gates becomes the timeline.

I conceive and import the concept of "RRH" for a reason which, in order for it to be explained, let us discuss another question first.

Consider, if scientists ultimately find all the relationships between the substances constituting our consciousness and our thoughts, feelings, emotions, behaviors, etcetera, they will be able to happily declare this conclusion: there can be a person thinking this way, feeling this way, emoting this way, behaving this way, providing his/her body substances are in these statuses.

For example, if one day in the future scientists ultimately have researched clearly that all those my organs, cells, nerves, or even including the quarks and bosons and the joined electrical magnetic fields or some more advanced physics concepts, would account for my thoughts, feelings, emotions, behaviors, in ways they have discovered, the scientists since then can declare that there can be a person thinking this way, feeling this way, emoting this way, behaving this way, providing the substances constituting this person are in these statuses, however, the scientists will still be unable to answer the question: why that person is me?

Consider that if there had been another person who is not me, being in exactly the same statuses of mine, feeling and behaving in exactly the same way of mine, then this scenario wouldn't violate scientists' ultimate discovery, and I would have never been existent, there had been another person who existed in place of me. So, why me?

One explanation is, there can be only one this "me" possibly existed. That is to say, as long as a group of substances constituting a person is in exactly those statuses, this person must be thinking that way, feeling that way, etcetera, and because there can only be one such person, and as I see, that person has already been me, then there can't be another person to replace me, so that must be me.

If we accept this explanation, then another question ensues, say, in a point of time I feel a bit angry, and scientists declare that it is my cells generating a chemical substance in 0.517 ounce which caused me that degree of angry, then the question is, why "me" is not a person whose cells generated 0.518 ounce and who feels a bit more angry? Then this explanation would say, there is another person whose cells generated 0.518 ounce and who feels that bit more angry, and as you, that person is unique, wherever cells generated 0.518 ounce, he must be there, just as wherever cells generated 0.517 ounce, it must be you.

OK, fine, if we further accept this explanation, then there must be a third person similar to me but whose cells generated 0.519, and a fourth person similar to me but whose cells generated 0.520, and a fifth person similar to me but whose cells generated 0.521, and so on and so on, then one more question occurs again, why "me" is in exactly 0.517, not 0.516, 0.518, or 0.666, blah blah blah blah?

Let us come back to my hypothetical model, then you can see the above questions have a new explanation, my whole hypothetical model suggests a total separation of our "self" and the "statuses information of a group of substances". Each of the "person information" of version 0.516, 0.517, 0.518 and so on exists in their own static 3 dimensional universe model respectively, aligned with that point of time on the time ruler axis in the warehouse, but those static 3 dimensional universe models and the different versions of "person information" are all dead, none of them is equal to my "self", but they exist there quietly forever, waiting for an RRH to bump into them, or for more RRHs, or for even infinite number of RRHs.

The Creator created me as a part of ONE and ONLY ONE RRH, then sent this RRH to pass through that warehouse, at that point against the time ruler axis, this RRH bumps into that specific one 3 dimensional universe model in which this person information is in exactly 0.517 version, so the above questions are all explained.

In my hypothetical model, the Creator can send infinite number of different RRHs to follow different route, as well as exactly the same route, thus there can even be infinite number of RRHs bumping into person information in 0.517 version, among which my "self" is only one of many, and all are different "self"s.

Review the start of this post of mine - I purposefully separate the Creator's creation of "the essence of our self" and "the statuses information of a group of substances in a 3 dimensional universe model" - the statuses information is not "us" and holds no self's existence whilst our self's existence is not to be accounted by just a set of statuses information - giving several puzzles an explanation. I don't mean this explanation is better, or correct, or is the case of fact, I think and wish it just should be there for people to consider and discuss.

There are still many many concepts I didn't address clearly or meanings I didn't properly convey, for example, when I used the English tense like the Creator created, have done something, I didn't mean them in our human concept of time, the Creator should have a higher dimension chronicle, but in my hypothetical model the Creator does have a before-after logic - or should I say steps order logic - in the creation - creates warehouse first, then creates RRHs, then let RRHs run through the warehouse.

I have no time to continue writing this in details today.
Lots to unpack there: One issue is the the nature of "why type questions". Why type questions are typically one of two contexts — causes or purposes, and people often conflate by the two, which leads them to formulate bad analysis. For example, identifying causes doesn't explain purposes. A person might ask, why there are clocks, and somebody might answer, "Because somebody built them." ( identifying the cause ). But then someone might ask, but why do they build clocks? And that answer will be totally different because it asks for a purpose. So the answer might be something like, "To help determine when we should do things?".

Why type questions about purpose and self or consciousness deal with both contexts, and similarly to the above, explaining the mechanics will never explain the purpose. It will only correlate with behavior. Explaining purpose gets into questions better left to philosophers and psychologists. This can be a very long conversation. For now I will leave you with an introduction to this subject by the noteworthy modern day philosopher David Chalmers.

How do you explain consciousness?
David Chalmers


 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure I understand your concept of the RRH. But am curious as to what the RRH stands for? I'm assuming it's something in your native language. It's interesting how your model parallels that of a computational system. The way I'm imagining it is that the warehouse is the memory bank, and each point represents a gate, and time represents each clock cycle, and the RRH is the system's access function. So on each clock cycle the RRH accesses and activates a gate, and successive activations of these gates becomes the timeline.
Exactly I should have used "time line" instead of "RRH" because, in my limited English language recognition, "time line" is more close to English native speakers' habit. But there is one serious problem, I think people often mingle(your writing taught me maybe to use word conflate is better) two different meanings by using "time line":
1, one is "time line as a gauge(what I clumsily called time ruler axis in my previous posts)" - a static concept;
2, the other is "flowing process of time elapse" - a dynamic kinetic concept.

Based on this background concern, I allowed myself to invent a new word to specifically address my meaning, I named it RRH trying to stick to its semantic purpose - its meaning is like a Red Running Ribbon, in contrast its past(its history, its trail) is like having been grayed out, and its future is like being pitch black suggesting a state of haven't been determined and can't be foreseen clearly, whereas RRH itself being red, vigorous, running, vital, vivacious.

But if I call it Red Running Ribbon, why not Red Running Line, Red Running Thread, Red Running Yarn? Since I mean no concrete shape for this concept. Years ago, I decided to name it Red Running Hike in my own heart when I thought about these questions, just for commemorating the fairy tale Red Riding Hood - both share the same acronym RRH.

A bit naughty and off topic I know, but there is another reason, vaguely, I used the term RRH which stands either for Red Running Hike or Red Riding Hood to imply that, the "images" could sometimes delude human being's mind, just like the wolf in the fairy tale inveigled the little girl, a bit pessimistic and dark but it is perhaps what the reality entails.

I also want to tell the story behind that I mistakenly thought you meant "memory" as human's memories when used together with "warehouse", partially because the movie Dreamcatcher(2003) is one of my lifetime favorite, in this movie 4 protagonists talked about "memory warehouse" in a leisure small party, later this "memory warehouse" of one protagonist's mind served as a sniff - spoof - search - escape ground for countering alien's vicious doing. So I thought in English language talking "memory“ together with "warehouse" probably refers to human's memories - like a mental warehouse indeed - the movie depicted it by a visual scene of memory warehouse, quite impressively branded into my mind.

I think your analogy of meanings I tried to express, with the computational system, is close to what I really wished to convey.

But there are some very very important points in your analogy, for which perhaps I didn't make clear in my previous posts:

1, Each point does be like a gate, but I envisioned them as discrete nodes just for temporarily an easier introduction for fast proceeding to my key idea, I haven't gone into details about many imaginations of their real reasonable layouts, in one of which the points are continuous, not discrete.

2, RRH's behavior is like an access function, no problem, but I particularly wished to envision this access as continuous action. In my way of expression, I said RRH passes through the warehouse and bumps into 3 dimensional models one by another, forming our experiences of one moment sliding into next moment. I don't wish to make it sound like that discretely, I wish to mean that it's continuous without gaps between every previous frame and next frame, but it's hard for me to explain.

3, The RRH's route is not in a free style, namely it can't backtrack, can't jump, can't pause or stop, and must follow an intricate arrangement of 3 dimensional universe models, otherwise the persons in this RRH wouldn't exist. For example, a person can't be in a wedding with Scarlett Johnasson in one 3 dimensional universe model but his RRH picks the next frame as a 3 dimensional universe model in which this same person be in a wedding with Taylor Swift.

Your reply reminded me that I should have particularly emphasized my hypothesis is prone to a continuous interpretation - the arrangement of 3 dimensional universe models is continuous in the warehouse, the points in the time ruler axis is continuous in the warehouse, the bumping of RRH into successive 3 dimensional universe models is continuous.

When there isn't any RRH passing through the warehouse, the warehouse is "dead", and the 3 dimensional universe models in the warehouse are "more" discrete, meaning even if they have been intricately arranged in a matrix order right on Creator's construction of this warehouse and a frame does have some order logic relationship with its adjacent frames, however this frame still somehow holds no linkage or attachment to its adjacent frames - they can be splitted as slices without killing anyone, from origin there is no "consciousness self" inside the whole construct.

It is when there is an RRH passing through the warehouse, piercing 3 dimensional universe models, that makes the transition from one frame to one of its next frame as a "consciousness self"'s experience. The RRH is living, experiencing - we are at its front tip - our "now" - while the 3 dimensional universe models are static, dead, be in there forever, stand ready for RRH's bumping(or accessing) a wave by another.

At least I think you can understand me that all these are very hard for me to express, even if I luckily get you understand my meaning, many details I'm afraid I lack time and also the ability to go into details in just a few weeks. Anyway the exchange is meaningful and you are great, thank you for communication.
 
there can be no evidence to support claims of life after death or notions of remote consciousness in the way they are often imagined. I know this sounds dismissive, but it's not.
Are you in the "I am a meaningless biobot" crowd? Thomas Kuhn: "What a man sees depends both upon what he looks at and also upon what his previous visual-conceptual experience has taught him to see." In other words, there is no talking someone out of a hole if he makes a choice to stay.

Sometimes we believe things not because they are true, but because they are empowering. For this reason alone, Biobot theory will wither regardless of the evidence. It has neither historical grand precedent, imbued strength. Its called faith. The other F word.
 
Last edited:

Alex

Administrator
Let me summarize, "I am a meaningless biobot, I am a meaningless biobot..." Perhaps, Thomas Kunz can provide some insight: "What a man sees depends both upon what he looks at and also upon what his previous visual-conceptual experience has taught him to see." In other words, there is no talking someone out of a hole if he makes a choice to stay.
nice. super interesting that kunz said this. one foot in science one foot beyond... seems like a good way to go
 
Top