since the search function is still disabled I risk opening a topic which might already have been covered. Should that be the case I beg your pardon. But I found this to be exceptionally important and so I will simply share it now.
Recently I have been reading Dean Radin's book "Entangled Minds". Radin mentioned something that really caught my attention. The story goes like this:
There was a young man, who attented college, graduated with the best results in mathematics and had a tested IQ of 126. Nothing special about that so far. But here it comes: His doctor noticed that this fellow had a slightly bigger head than others and so he asked him if he would agree to be examined by Lorber, the scientist who brought this whole thing up. He agreed and so they examined his head and found that he didn't have a brain. No Brain. Math graduate, IQ 126, totally normal guy, with social life, friends, family. But no brain
. Only a 1mm thick layer of tissue right behind the forehead. The rest: cerebrospinal fluid.
Radin claimed that he had that info out of Science Mag - so I gave it a shot and voilá:"Is your brain really necessary?"http://www.sciencemag.org/content/210/4475/1232
Appearently there are over 600
such cases known to the medical community.
The reason I posted this in the philosophy and not the PSI section is that I find this way too important to simply classify it as a weird anomaly, because it holds so many implications. All the fluff and puff that neuroscience has dug up - all these seemingly arbritary connections between certain emotions, memory, processing capacity etc. and regions in the brain seems to be useless speculation in the light of these findings. (This holds even stronger for any proposed causalities...) The funny thing is that Science Mag argues: "But, startling as it may seem, this case is nothing new to the medical world." :D (This reminded me of Niels Bohr saying: "For those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it.")
To me there is not a chance how anyone would want to argue about this: "Oh, this is just a freak case." A freak case? A man without a brain who is yet fully functional
Because if all that neuropsychological mapping were correct - then this man would simply not be able to even hold a spoon. And as far as I understood the development of a scientific theory: as soon as we find substantial evidence that the theory obviously is not applicable under all proposed circumstances, we either - according to the width of its application - have to trash it or at least rephrase it in such a way that it fits the new conflicting data. How would this be accomplished in this case?
"Oh well, some people need a brain. Others don't. We haven't figured that out just yet...." :D
What I wanted to get at was the following: Tom often points out that actually: "You don't have a brain." The fact being, that this reality is both digital and fractal based, meaning that different fractal levels do not need to be rendered unless we want to look at them in detail. As long as we refrain from doing that the VR-server is simply rendering the effect of that given lower fractal level, which it does not render. Unless somebody opens up your head to see whether you have a brain - it does not need to be computed. Only its effects have to be available. Effects like those of the man described above: intelligence, emotions, navigation etc.
So, here we are: Sometimes the database or even the rendering aren't perfect. But still the effect is there. I find this - among other experiments and findings - to be one of the strongest cases for the VR hypothesis - and of course for the hypothesis that consciousness is fundamental and everything else is just a function of it.
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." Max Planck