u/PrebioticE

Is this an accurate way to think about how the brain constructs our sense of self and space?

From what I've read, the process seems something like this:

• The brain keeps an internal map of the environment around us.
• It also keeps a representation of our own body inside that map.
• As new sensory information comes in, the brain constantly updates both the body and the environment to figure out where we are and what's happening around us.
• The hippocampus and nearby brain regions store memories of places and build "cognitive maps" of familiar environments.
• The intraparietal sulcus (IPS) helps calculate the positions of our body, nearby objects, and the surrounding environment relative to one another.
• The primary somatosensory cortex processes touch and body position (proprioception).
• The insula monitors the body's internal state, such as pain, temperature, heartbeat, hunger, thirst, and other internal sensations.
• The posterior parietal cortex combines vision, touch, and proprioception into a unified representation of the body.
• The temporoparietal junction (TPJ) combines visual perspective, vestibular (balance), proprioceptive, and body-related spatial information.
• This integration is thought to contribute to our sense of self-location, body ownership, and first-person perspective—in other words, the feeling that "I am located here" within the surrounding world.

Is this broadly accurate according to current neuroscience, or am I oversimplifying or assigning too much of these functions to specific brain regions?

I will ask further questions later.

So if you are researching on this subject, you must have a data set available. So that anyone can analyze it for themselves. This might include, geographic details, weather the case is solved, how good is the case, dates of births and deaths, weather the match is strangers or known, manner of death, geographic details of the diseased, weather birthmarks or other things were found, ,etc etc.

Without such a data set its not possible to evaluate this phenomenon. anyone know if this data set is available?

So I am not talking about paranormal incidents where during NDE people experienced things that can't be explained. I am talking about something what everyone is likely to agree on.
Does it seem like you are tying to remember as much as you can about important things you like to remember after death?

So I know the arguments for bees having consciousness. Do you have any good arguments for why it might not be the case?

So I can't do astral projection, and I also notice that I am not good at third person perspective. But I was wondering if you guys who can do this, are you naturally able to imagine yourself out of body? That is can you just imagine yourself from the corner of the room from a third person perspective? I can't do this, it looks very unnatural and blurry. I don't mean about having the OBE. I am saying about just casually imagining yourself from a third person perspective while feeling your body to be where it actually is.

Can anyone of you explain or point me a paper on the evolution of consciousness by function? So like what was the first function of consciousness? And so on. I don't want the evolution in terms of which animal was first conscious, rather what was the functionary evolution of consciousness in a nice order. ?

So if consciousness exist outside, like after death for example, how do you think it survive? does it also feed for nourishment? What are its food? sources of energy? Do you think it dissipate ? or can exist for ever?

So what is the difference between the OBE you get during NDE where you look down at paramedics, wonder around in the hospital, and then reaching you own body on the hospital bed, what is so different about this compared to the one that Susan Blackmore had in the Oxford building after smoking a joint and becoming tired?

To me it is the narrative. I am not sure if people see the real hospital or a reconstruction of it inside their brain, but what is strange is that narrative.

So, when we do calculations, and do experiments, we take more or less random interactions in to account. In these random reactions, weakly coupled fields outside of known SM do not become influential.

By complex Matter I mean things like our brain. Our brain is not simply a complex neural network but also some crazy resonator that create coherent EM effects. How can we be for sure that no other field comes in to influence the complex matte as our brain when they are coherent? How do we rule out the effects of these weak fields outside the SM on these 'complex matter' when there is coherence involved rather than random collisions?

So there are several phenomenon that challenges physicalist view of consciousness to various degrees.

My favorite are the "Children recalling alleged past lives" or can be called reincarnation type (RT). But NDE are the ones that is commonly discussed. Why is that?
Ian Stevenson walked all over the world collecting these cases of RT. He has published thousands of pages describing in considerable detail. If you want to challenge physicalism, this is the best piece of evidence you got.
A) Are you aware of Ian Stevenson, Erlendur Haraldsson work?
B) Do you think they sound unreliable?

With NDE you can tuck away the odd paranormal cases and most of it is explained as some hidden activity in the brain since we do have OBE even when we are not dead, some people can do it voluntarily. But when you take RT cases, those can't be easily dismissed. Checkout birthmark cases.

Fascinatingly, some children of RT speak of an intermission period that overlap this OBE after death.
So in NDE you have people say things like "I was looking down at paramedics". In a few RT cases you have the child say they "looked down at their own funeral".

So, gravity is about about 10^-36 weak as electromagnetism, clearly a interaction that weak would not appear in the scattering amplitude. So I have a question. Lets say we have a new boson B, (not A as in EM) such that , L'_int = −bψˉ​(γ^μ)ψ(B_μ) as contrast to L_int = −eψˉ​(γ^μ)ψ(A_μ). How weak should b be compared to e such that scattering amplitude M'_SM=M_SM+M_B​ would not be affected by this L'_int ? (Did I ask this question correctly?)

lets think what would happen in these cases:

• if b∼10−1 e ?
• if b∼10−2 e ?
• if b∼10−3 e ?
• if b∼10−6 e ?
• if b∼10−10 e ?

I'm trying to understand Sean Carroll's argument that any interaction strong enough to influence the brain or ordinary matter would already have been detected by particle physics.

Is there a theory for this? Is there a mathematical version of what this says?

How many of you are believing that consciousness or something related to it leave the dying body and perhaps find another body(At least it happen in some cases, so not every animal, not every human, but it happen some times)? And how many of you are simply saying that consciousness simply disappears after death?

Most importantly what are your reasons? What evidence do you use to draw your belief?

So Aristotal also the man who invented Aristotal logic, apparently believed that consciousness was localized in the heart, and his views were influential, compared to Hippocrates, Democritus who thought its to do with the brain. Ancient Egypt thought it was the heart. Why did it take so long fo people to realize that consciousness is to do with the brain? Because a nonfatal blow to the head could cause concussion, blow to the heat cause chest pain. Why was this not obvious.?

So I was studying about String Diagrams in Monoidal category theory. So neat trick to turn category theory in to a graphical algebra. But currently we are working on flat sheet. I was wondering weather there is a extension of this idea to a more general surface other than the flat sheet, say a torus or a sphere. Although I am not sure at the moment what that would be like.

So when you have to answer "What is your profession?" What is the right answer?
A)Is it the job that you do to pay bills?
B) or is it something thing that you are professional at, but not currently employed in that field?
C)Which ever sounds more dignifying of A and B?

Has Category theory been used in physics for anything cool? I imagine they might have used it in particle physics. And I know they used it in QM (I think on something called quantum Topology ). But I was wondering, weather they used Category theory ideas like monads specifically, say in circuit diagrams for Quantum Information or something like that. How about thermodynamics that have circuit like applications where we can have interacting thermodynamic bodies in series and parallel.?

So an idea came to my mind. What if we instead of tying to turn a bird in to a dinosaur using difficult genetic engineering, what if we do the simple artificial selection and cross breeding to make a bird larger and flightless? We can sort of bring back "genetic memory". Instead of studying ostriches we can then study these new bids.

So I have a background in little bit of physics, statistics, and mathematics, I like doing regression models Kalman filters and used to love doing physics simulations as well. Anyways, so from my perspective, why would functional programming be useful? Also I can't think on top of my head, but I have used python and R to do egression models etc. So I might have used functional programming? So who ever does functional programming, what are you using it for?