Life before Birth

*now explain youself, John?* jasper. I've never been able to explain my self.

i never seen it but have we not always known this ?

Actually, this program left me with more questions than answers. What I found particularly interesting, was the idea that the fetus at such an early stage of development, could dream. Or at the very least, experience rem. This I believe, is pre consciousness and why we sleep. A return to the conditions of the womb. Also explains why we find the sound of the sea relaxing, or even familiar.

hmmm...i like the sound of rain on my tin roof. But then, maybe i'm just a W.C. Fields fan! errr Jasper, but you know 3's from 4's yield only 6's by 9's. (But then...i learnt all my maths from you my friend from down under yonder!...yet i suckle not...don't go near the moors the pity). I believe consciousness is a fallacy. I'd rather experience Dylan than REM if i was a fetus -but then i (according to definitions provided here) lack the ability to choose. (Doesn't leave much room for Science nor Religion to me! -but then i didn't provide these arguments!...but now i'm just being conceited (because i have no answer myself (yet i don't consider myself a fetus!)hmmm( )?)(???).

*I believe consciousness is a fallacy* So you believe consciousness is merely a trick of Darwinian survival?

Ha Jasper. Out of interest. What do you think of the concept of shared consciousness?

haha. Do you really want my explanation Jasper? And no! Not time.

Absolutely.

wow...shared consciousness...I had an obe once. I sat next to a bookcase and a voice rang down to me from nowhere and shouted "ENOCH!" It happened shortly after I awoke during the night, there was a really intense hissing noise in my head (you know off frequency radio) and it grew more and more intense until it began to roar. At that point it was just asif the mind was like a t'v screen and someone had flicked channels. Just like that. I was out. It was very momentary, and I shit it and snapped back. It's all so very real.

In the sense of this TV programme, Jasper, they were using 4D to talk about showing 3 dimensional images of a foetus in the womb in real-time at various points of his development. I'm not sure it deserved the grand title of 4D, as it didn't really do anything exciting with time, just showed it occurring. And of course, we're watching it on television, which is a two dimensional surface. Have you ever read Flatland by the Reverand Abbot? It's an interesting little book about how two-dimensional life is theoretically possible and then bolting a 1984 type plot to it. In Flatland, if you are walking along and there's a creature in front of you, you have to climb over it, because you can't step aside.

Apologies about the delay there...had to transgress two suburbs on foot (both!)-everyone else (both of him) passed out so had to go...come...home. Now...what was it we were talking about? Ah yes...kind of changes the instant it's brought up...like...children? But then...sometimes i feel grown up, other times i don't.?.?. Time...nah...no regress needed here! It's just that everyone knows what i need, whereas only everyone else knows what i want (cliches aside, still doesn't leave much room for me does it!). 'Trick'...?...errr either i'm really missing something or someone's pressuposing something here (or both!)?

I find that 'The Little Prince' captures a great deal about what is important about the four dimensions.

But then, the fourth dimension looks different to the other three when you're little...doesn't it?!

>> ...transgress two suburbs ... << Is English your other language?

I thought i was little Jasper?! I've heard otherwise!

Nah yeah miss hippie! not my other...my favourite!

uh-oh...i'm definetly not sending you that rocket ship with that attitude about time my precious! but you there saw my see about Mary or something! Don't you hate it when the words mean more than content...how?! Bah! I stand by my argument: consciousness is a fallacy, and my typing is shithouse; but then i can blame my keyboard in both instances.

Take the notion of 3D reality. It has inherent limitations imposed by our own limited senses. So for all intensive purpose, we are un able to base our questions and our interpretations of the answers beyond those limiting factors. We attribute time as a 4th D, because we can't perceive any alternative explanation that fits well with our models. But time implies a beginning dose it not? 'An old argument'. Premise: C is not constant. Like sound it hits some self induced barrier that prevents velocity grater than the speed of light. Premise: The pressent model for the behaver of the electron, 'the electron as a fundamental particle' - (The Classical Model), 'or the electron as behaving like a wave', - (The quantum model), can not be unified by the unification of EM and gravity. So Premise 1. How can C meet a barrier causing it to have a constant Velocity? Try this thought experiment Jasper. Take an elastic band. Hold with both hands and twist in to a figure eight. Where the apex of the band cross over, don't let them touch. If we fallow the path of a photon at a constant V, along the path of the figure eight, we see that it passes through the apex and comes back on its self. Thats my barrier. Now think of an electron behaving in the same fashion. As it travels the same route as the photon, it starts out as a fundamental particle, - 'the Classical model', but as it crosses over the apex, it behaves more like a wave - 'The quantum model). ie, The electron as both a fundamental particle and a quantum wave. Now think of dimensions in the same way.

Ok my honey without buzz! Just keep the wear and tear on under this dew drop alright! For Beeple this'll may tree!!! Ha ha ha!!! (and you know how i hate showing my deflection in public!...sorry, sorry, re-affection!) hmmm...more like no infact of life present...surely? Grrrr...does an alien really have to explain to an alien (i just prefer it when we play!)?! *Ducks...PondErs...then Penguins like hell!*

hahaha..

Hmmm...fascinating stuff John. Particularly in relation to the observation (assupmtion?) that babies are massively more elastic in their sensations/perceptions than adults: (i.e. we 'tune-in' -or 'habituate') to our surrounds to the extent that we lose (weaken) unused ('other') senses. What are your thoughts (sensations...hehehe) here if i may enquire (-an area of great interest to me). regards, Ben. ps. in terms of survival, consciousness doesn't matter if it is constant.

At this stage of the argument i should point out to everyone that i'm flat out with two dimensions!

Further!...Jasper...why do you keep me up during this four dimensional hour?!

*(i.e. we 'tune-in' -or 'habituate') to our surrounds to the extent that we lose (weaken) unused ('other') senses.* Exactly! It goes back to my argument re a cell's specificity to environment and the idea that 'Imagination', 'creativity' 'the state of dreaming', is in some way a precursor to 'Knowledge' - 'Self awareness' as a proof for consciousness. For me, the precursors of any human or animal characteristic is of more significances then the end product.

No...sorry hun...and worse still...my skunks have shnrippled! And no...no no no no no no no yes tarts can reveal their inner slutiness to me without being skanky! More's the pity! Hmmm 'sleep'...very conceptuish of you...stop making minds without them! And stop accusing me of being a groundy...so i fell in a hole a few times...can be enjoyable if you theory it right (but then better to fall than bend in love!) *quacka quacka quacka...waddle waddle waddle*

Hi John, thanks for the reply. Interesting! So is it that my keyboard here has a specificity to the environment because it can persist among thermodynamic forces? It seems to me to be one hell of a leap from these precursors to claiming consciousness. I just cannot see the proof of the link between any of these things (dreaming, imagination, creativity) and 'consciousness' per se. Say for a moment that i agree that consciousness here is a 'spin-off' of the precursors you mention. Yet, i can still argue we have no control over it, even if we are self-aware! (Because there's nothing in those precursors that suggests control over the resulting consciousness, only that is able to feed back on itself (parallel processing) to the point that it has the 'time' (arrghhh four dimensions again!) to recognise something is happening! (Hence Jasper's early conclusion of infinite regress! -he knows me far too well). In fact, if consciousness is a 'result' of the precursors (imagination or whatever), how can it then be a case of free-will?...which to me IS consciousness (no choice without no choice!). I find my pet cockroach 'aware' of things (i.e. has knowledge), though probably not self-aware (BIG assumption) (but who else is he/she reacting to if not in relation to self-preservation? -continuing the darwinian hypothesis here (and J will crucify me as per!); yet i always seem to find something else when searching for this thing i call self. Hence, either i'm the cockroach, or dead people are only sleeping!. I'm sure glad i wasn't the first 'human' with self-awareness to look in a river's reflection - i hate to think what would have happened to my head...or neural paths as it were. I've seriously lost control of my paragraphing here, and my ink is running out and i can't write any faster... cherio.

i didnt see it