It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
EPFL scientists propose a new way of understanding of how the brain processes unconscious information into our consciousness. According to the model, consciousness arises only in time intervals of up to 400 milliseconds, with gaps of unconsciousness in between.
The driver ahead suddenly stops, and you find yourself stomping on your breaks before you even realize what is going on. We would call this a reflex, but the underlying reality is much more complex, forming a debate that goes back centuries: Is consciousness a constant, uninterrupted stream or a series of discrete bits -- like the 24 frames-per-second of a movie reel? Scientists from EPFL and the universities of Ulm and Zurich, now put forward a new model of how the brain processes unconscious information, suggesting that consciousness arises only in intervals up to 400 milliseconds, with no consciousness in between. The work is published in PLOS Biology.
originally posted by: jakball
I think that when we die, we are still beings who have the gift of freewill.
Unconscious cognition is the processing of perception, memory, learning, thought, and language without being aware of it.
The role of the unconscious mind on decision making is a topic greatly debated by neuro-scientists and psychologists around the world. Though the actual level of involvement of the unconscious brain during a cognitive process might still be a matter of differential opinion, the fact that the unconscious brain does play a role in cognitive activity is undeniable. Several experiments and well recorded phenomena attest to this fact, for example the illusion-of-truth effect. There have also been several experiments suggesting that the unconscious mind might actually be better at decision making than the conscious mind when there are multiple variables to take into consideration.
I think that traditionally people think religion has overseen the domain of death and spirit, but there is not steadfast rule that the two have to be related.
zazzafrazz:I think that traditionally people think religion has overseen the domain of death and spirit, but there is not steadfast rule that the two have to be related.
argentus: Much of the world seems to be more interested in compartmentalising various phenomena than the specific phenomenon itself. Why? I don't know, but I would guess it's related to control of the masses and requiring adherence to a collective dogma.
argentus: Many religious factions seem to have a tithing, and agreement with the terms of that religion seems to be an inducer into paying that tithing, and also with following the precepts of that particular religion.
argentus: If there is a God (and I believe there is) surely S/he doesn't want us all to manipulate and castigate each other in H/is/er name.
argentus: I don't see why it has to be this way or that.
argentus: You believe you perceive an essence that survives after a human's body has expired. Why should we struggle for what that is called? I have been accused of being a Universalist. The person did everything but spit after saying it. I looked it up and it didn't sound so bad to me. I don't choose one religious faction over another. There are some factions whose peripheral human rules are off-putting to me.
argentus: I also really dislike that those who haven't pledged their alliance are frequently castigated by groups who seem to disdain "free agents". Religion itself seems to be an artifact of humanity.
argentus: God doesn't have to be a single entity. It doesn't have to be called "God", or Washtucna, or Buddha, or Kokopelli, or Vishnu, or Allah, or The Is. For me, it is a collective consciousness and a higher power by virtue of its strength and compassion.
argentus: Quantum mechanics might be the avenue toward communion with Whatever-it-is. As with Quantum Mechanics, if you attempt to measure a particle, you change the variables. You can measure where a particle probability is, but not it's precise location. I believe that thinking of God in terms of a probability cloud is possibly as good as any other label.
argentus: If I am wrong, then it's God's fault, because He/She put this coconut on my shoulders, and it sure as hell wasn't for chanting "baaaa-aaaa" and following the herd.
originally posted by: argentus
a reply to: vethumanbeing
I don't disagree with anything you said. I hope you didn't hope for an impassioned back-and-forth I would certainly screw up the quote and BB code if I tried. You tend toward stronger language. Nothing wrong with that.
The core (for me) is that a person doesn't have to choose between ghosts/spirits/souls OR the historic packaging of a cultural/regional/religious dogma. A person can easily make their own belief system. I feel that way about mine, although I'm sure I could be cubbyholed into a religious label or two if somebody was willing to fold my ears back.
argentus: I'm sure I would have remembered if that had ever happened.
argentus: I really appreciate your insightful reply. These are the type of conversations that first led me to ATS, where people can agree, banter, disagree or even change their minds and it's not a catfight.
argentus: Something to teach and something to learn. *snort!!!* Apple products.