It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How does the material brain initiate the material brain?

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

THERE'S ZERO EVIDENCE THAT THE MATERIAL BRAIN CAN DO THESE THINGS.



Other than that it's happening every second of the day times several trillion lifeforms?

Have you got proof that a quanto-religious deity/being is somehow running it all like a puppeteer? No. Nor will you ever.




posted on May, 12 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

WHAT???

Have you even read anything I said?

Where did I say anything about magical?? These are words people use when they can't debate the issue.

Secondly, you said the material brain can initiate thought, explain how this can occur or how this is even possible. I said consciousness was non physical and operates the material brain.

Like I said there's not a shred of evidence that even suggest the material brain can initiate anything. We can show how the material brain is active in a particular area after the task is initiated but again, THERE'S ZERO EVIDENCE that the material brain can initiate anything.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Your argument is nothing more than special pleading.

TYPING IN ALL CAPS and bolding certain phrases does not make your argument any more compelling.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Sure it does:

ESPECIALLY WHEN IT REFUTES ALL OF THE NONSENSE THAT'S BEING SPEWED!



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Bedlam

WHAT???

Have you even read anything I said?


Sure. It's basically you repeating over and over that the material brain can't make a thought (although what proof you have of this is beyond me) and you seem to be trying to invoke some sort of quantum process (or religious, it's hard to tell) that appeals to Cartesian dualism. Then you try to pull the "but if it's a soul/spirit/quantum® thing, it just works and is somehow immune to the same question" argument. Does that about summarize it?



Where did I say anything about magical?? These are words people use when they can't debate the issue.


No, THAT word is "quantum". And your argument is basically 'quantum woo'. There, I said it.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

WOW, you must be desperate!!

When pseudoskeptics crack open the phrase QUANTUM WOO you know they have zero argument. You have used the terms magical and quantum woo because you can't debate the issue.

Of course the material brain can't initiate thought and there's not a SHRED OF EVIDENCE that supports this. It's not my job to show you proof of something that doesn't exist. There first have to be EVIDENCE that this is the case and you or anyone else haven't provided one shred of evidence that the material brain can accomplish these things.

I DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT IT CAN'T BECAUSE THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT IT CAN!!

That's why I keep asking for evidence and I keep getting nonsense and hyperbole.

When science can't explain something, you just can't say it must be the material brain because this is what you want to believe. There's growing evidence that I listed earlier that shows consciousness doesn't originate in the material brain.

Stop spewing these nonsensical diatribes without a shred of evidence.

I have asked over and over again for the evidence that shows the material brain can initiate simple things like the recall of a specific memory and there has been ZERO EVIDENCE presented and a bunch of hyperbole and now "quantum woo" which just tells me you can't debate the issue.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I think this picture best describes the paradox.


I have thought about these questions as well. How does a name surface or a word you forgot come to mind? It's on the tip of your tongue but you can't say it. The harder you try, the more elusive that word is it seems. Forget about it for awhile then like bubbles in a champagne glass, it's just there, popped into existence in the forefront of your memory without even trying. What about the words I'm typing now as they flow seamlessly from my fingers without me sitting here thinking about what I'm going to type? We can talk on and on for hours unscripted. Hundreds if not thousands of words done instantly all coming from one spark of "something?" happening at .0000009 of a second.

So your question is a good one. If we're not physically doing it, who/what is? Where is that coming from? Does this mean free will is an illusion? Are we being controlled non-locally under the impression we are doing it ourselves?



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Bedlam

WOW, you must be desperate!!

When pseudoskeptics crack open the phrase QUANTUM WOO you know they have zero argument. You have used the terms magical and quantum woo because you can't debate the issue.


Not at all. YOU have stated, without any proof whatever, that the brain MUST HAVE some other component. Despite the obvious functioning of them in pretty much every complex organism. You want to posit some other component that does the actual thinking for some reason - Cartesian dualism at its finest. And you invoke quantum this or that.

Why do you think any "quantum component" of a nervous system exists at all? What proof do you have for it? Why should I invoke some invisible, uninstrumentable putative dualism construct to explain behavior? And, again, how do you explain the functioning of this invisible component? In what way does IT initiate thought?

So far, your reply to that has been to cite some guy who says "if it's quantum, maybe it's part of God or something and therefore, don't ask further!"

By invoking some unknown, unproven, non-detectable second component, you're trying to dodge the hard questions.

And usually, that involves waving Quantum® over an argument.

Frankly I'm surprised you haven't rung in Tesla yet.



Of course the material brain can't initiate thought and there's not a SHRED OF EVIDENCE that supports this. It's not my job to show you proof of something that doesn't exist. There first have to be EVIDENCE that this is the case and you or anyone else haven't provided one shred of evidence that the material brain can accomplish these things.


Show me a soul.



I DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT IT CAN'T BECAUSE THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT IT CAN!!


You're the one invoking an undetectable dual. It's your burden, baby.



That's why I keep asking for evidence and I keep getting nonsense and hyperbole.

When science can't explain something, you just can't say it must be the material brain because this is what you want to believe. There's growing evidence that I listed earlier that shows consciousness doesn't originate in the material brain.

Stop spewing these nonsensical diatribes without a shred of evidence.


Soul. Show me it.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: neoholographic

I think this picture best describes the paradox.


I have thought about these questions as well. How does a name surface or a word you forgot come to mind? It's on the tip of your tongue but you can't say it. The harder you try, the more elusive that word is it seems. Forget about it for awhile then like bubbles in a champagne glass, it's just there, popped into existence in the forefront of your memory without even trying. What about the words I'm typing now as they flow seamlessly from my fingers without me sitting here thinking about what I'm going to type? We can talk on and on for hours unscripted. Hundreds if not thousands of words done instantly all coming from one spark of "something?" happening at .0000009 of a second.

So your question is a good one. If we're not physically doing it, who/what is? Where is that coming from? Does this mean free will is an illusion? Are we being controlled non-locally under the impression we are doing it ourselves?



Exactly, these things can't be explained by materialism.

I think there's one consciousness experiencing different local "realities." I think we're under the illusion of separation from this consciousness because of things like decoherence. Even Einstein called separation from the whole an illusion. This goes back to Plato and the allegory of the cave.

So at the end of the day, we are this singular consciousness experiencing and observing this local "reality" and some people are trapped in the illusion of separation.

How else can consciousness experience the different probable states of the wave function if the illusion of separation isn't a strong one?



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam



Why do you think any "quantum component" of a nervous system exists at all?


Just skimming the thread now and like another poster mentioned, there's high functioning microtubules in brains cells which have been discovered to vibrate at very high frequencies.
www.sciencedaily.com...



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Bedlam



Why do you think any "quantum component" of a nervous system exists at all?


Just skimming the thread now and like another poster mentioned, there's high functioning microtubules in brains cells which have been discovered to vibrate at very high frequencies.
www.sciencedaily.com...


But that proves that microtubules vibrate at high frequencies. Maybe. What it doesn't prove, is that there's a quantum being/soul/spirit/ghost on the other end somehow driving the body like a car.

And if you want to posit that there is, then, other than "it's a spirit, therefore all rules are off", how does this quantum being initiate a thought? What characteristic does IT have that the brain does not? Any structure you can hypothesize for the quantum spirit being might also exist in the meat brain.

That's why I said it was a sort of invocation of magic. It goes like this :

1) I don't see how a meat brain can generate a thought (which is an argument from ignorance, but let's ignore that)
2) Tipler or someone has said that there are microtubules, which might have some sort of quantum function
3) therefore there is a quantum spirit/being/soul whatever on the other end
4) profit!
5) I don't have to answer how that being initiates a thought if a brain can't, because quantum. And the invocation of quantum trumps any other question, like a pancake on a bunny head.

Frankly, I think invoking an unprovable, putative quantum being or religious soul/spirit as operator that can't be questioned because it's a mystery is tantamount to invocation of magic or Goddidit as an argument. And on top of that, I think Tipler is a really smart guy in physics, but when you start going afield, you can't say "I'm a great physicist, therefore I understand the unseen realm too, trust me".

If he wants to come up with a scientifically valid proof, that would be really wonderful. But finding microtubules ain't it.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

You said:


Why do you think any "quantum component" of a nervous system exists at all? What proof do you have for it? Why should I invoke some invisible, uninstrumentable putative dualism construct to explain behavior? And, again, how do you explain the functioning of this invisible component? In what way does IT initiate thought?


Again, there's plenty of evidence that supports what I'm saying. The problem is there isn't a shred of evidence that supports that the material brain can initiate anything. So it's silly to bury your head in the sand and say, the material brain does it without any evidence that the material brain can initiate anything.

You haven't presented any evidence just pure nonsense in post after post. There has to be evidence to support this. You just assume it must be the case because this is what you want to believe. Here's some evidence that points in a different direction.

First you have the growing field of Quantum Biology. It's insane to claim natural selection can do all things and then turn around and say quantum mechanics can't have anything to do with consciousness. THAT'S JUST BELIEF.

There's evidence growing that supports the quantum mind. Again, you act as if people are just saying these things in a vacuum. YOU'RE THE ONE THAT DOESN'T PRESENT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THE NOTION THAT THE BRAIN CAN INITIATE ANYTHING.

Discovery of quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons corroborates controversial 20-year-old theory of consciousness

www.kurzweilai.net... ousness

Consciousness Does Not Compute (and Never Will), Says Korean Scientist


In his paper, "Non-computability of Consciousness," Daegene Song proves human consciousness cannot be computed. Song arrived at his conclusion through quantum computer research in which he showed there is a unique mechanism in human consciousness that no computing device can simulate.

Song's work also shows consciousness is not like other physical systems like neurons, atoms or galaxies. "If consciousness cannot be represented in the same way all other physical systems are represented, it may not be something that arises out of a physical system like the brain," said Song. "The brain and consciousness are linked together, but the brain does not produce consciousness. Consciousness is something altogether different and separate. The math doesn't lie."


www.prnewswire.com...

Physicist Roger Penrose reached a similar conclusion.

Here's the article:

arxiv.org...

New Study Favors Quantum Mind


Quantum coherence in brain protein resembles plant photosynthesis

Back in the brain, microtubules are components of the cytoskeleton inside neurons, cylindrical lattice polymers of the protein ‘tubulin’. Microtubules are theorized to encode memory, regulate synapses and act as quantum computers generating consciousness. The latter claim has been criticized, but now it appears quantum mechanisms eerily similar to those in photosynthesis may operate in tubulins within microtubules.

In an article published September 17 by the Journal of the Royal Society – Interface a team of scientists from Nova Southeastern University and the University of Arizona in the US, and the University of Alberta in Canada used computer simulation and theoretical quantum biophysics to analyze quantum coherence among tryptophan pi resonance rings in tubulin, the component protein in microtubules.


www.newswise.com...

Here's a list of peer reviewed papers published on the quantum mind:


1. Craddock JA, Hameroff SR, Ayoub AT, Klobukowski M, Tuszynski JA.
Anesthetics act in quantum channels in brain microtubules to prevent consciousness.
Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry, 2015/3/1, Vol 15:6, 523-533.

2. Craddock J.A. Travis, Friesen D, Mane J, Hameroff SR, Tuszynski JA.
The Feasibility of Coherent Energy Transfer in Microtubules.
Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 17 September 2014
Craddock et al 2014 JRSInterface.pdf

3. Hameroff SR, Craddock TJ, Tuszynski JA.
Quantum effects in the understanding of consciousness
J Integr Neurosci. 2014 Apr 13(2):229-52

4. Hameroff S. and Penrose R.
Consciousness in the universe: A review of the 'Orch OR' theory.
Phys Life Rev, 2014; Mar 11(1):39-78.

5. Hameroff S.
Quantum walks in brain microtubules-a biomolecular basis for quantum cognition?
Top Cogn Sci, 2014; Jan; 6(1):91-7.


www.quantumconsciousness.org...

There's a list of 97 papers.

The problem you have is you want to yell QUANTUM WOO because in your blind mind this means something. The fact is, there's not a shred of evidence that supports the notion that the material brain can accomplish these things so people who are actually seeking the truth instead of burying their heads in the sand are looking into these areas and building EVIDENCE not just hyperbole that says this must be the case without any evidence.

Here's published papers on Psi.



The following is a selected list of downloadable peer-reviewed journal articles reporting studies of psychic phenomena, mostly published in the 21st century. There are also some important papers of historical interest and other resources. A comprehensive list would run into thousands of articles.

Commonly repeated critiques about psi, such as “these phenomena are impossible,” or “there’s no valid scientific evidence,” or “the results are all due to fraud,” have been soundly rejected for many decades. Such critiques persist due to ignorance of the relevant literature and to entrenched, incorrect beliefs. Legitimate debates today no longer focus on existential questions but on development of adequate theoretical explanations, advancements in methodology, the “source” of psi, and issues about effect size heterogeneity and robustness of replication.


deanradin.com...

Duane & Behrendt (1965). Extrasensory electroencephalographic induction between identical twins.

Grinberg-Zylberbaum et al (1994). The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox in the Brain: The transferred potential

Wiseman & Schlitz (1997). Experimenter effects and the remote detection of staring.

Standish et al (2003). Evidence of correlated functional magnetic resonance imaging signals between distant human brains.

Wackermann et al (2003). Correlations between brain electrical activities of two spatially separated human subjects

Schmidt et al (2004). Distant intentionality and the feeling of being stared at: Two meta-analyses

Radin (2004). Event related EEG correlations between isolated human subjects.

Standish et al (2004). Electroencephalographic evidence of correlated event-related signals between the brains of spatially and sensory isolated human subjects


Again, just a small portion of the papers listed. Click the link to see the rest of the articles.

I will stop here because like Radin said, the evidence can run thousands of pages. There was a recent paper that says the wave function is a nonphysical reality.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam




But that proves that microtubules vibrate at high frequencies. Maybe. What it doesn't prove, is that there's a quantum being/soul/spirit/ghost on the other end somehow driving the body like a car.


It proves that "For some unknown and unexplained reason" we have microtubules that vibrate in megahertz not hertz. Quantum vibrations, ultra fast. Not just high frequencies. Why?

Many scientists believe if we build a computer fast enough, smart enough, eventually it will develop consciousness. That's the working theory, flawed in my opinion. What this discovery suggests is consciousness derives from quantum vibrations in microtubules, protein polymers inside brain neurons, which both govern neuronal and synaptic function, and connect brain processes to self-organizing processes in the fine scale, 'proto-conscious' quantum structure of reality.

Whilst this doesn't prove a soul or God puppeteer, it certainly leads to a trail of breadcrumbs in that direction. Can you take a metal bucket of circuits, put them together and create consciousness? That's what our meat brain is.

eta: just want to mention anesthesia. We know how to use it, we know just how much to administer to a patient, we know where it comes from, but we still don't know how it works. But for some reason, it has the ability to shut off consciousness. Anesthesia, microtubules and consciousness. These three things under study will reveal whether or not consciousness is non-local
edit on 12-5-2015 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Bedlam




But that proves that microtubules vibrate at high frequencies. Maybe. What it doesn't prove, is that there's a quantum being/soul/spirit/ghost on the other end somehow driving the body like a car.


It proves that "For some unknown and unexplained reason" we have microtubules that vibrate in megahertz not hertz. Quantum vibrations, ultra fast. Not just high frequencies. Why?

Many scientists believe if we build a computer fast enough, smart enough, eventually it will develop consciousness. That's the working theory, flawed in my opinion. What this discovery suggests is consciousness derives from quantum vibrations in microtubules, protein polymers inside brain neurons, which both govern neuronal and synaptic function, and connect brain processes to self-organizing processes in the fine scale, 'proto-conscious' quantum structure of reality.

Whilst this doesn't prove a soul or God puppeteer, it certainly leads to a trail of breadcrumbs in that direction. Can you take a metal bucket of circuits, put them together and create consciousness? That's what our meat brain is.


Exactly!!

It's amazing how people act like the assumption MUST BE MADE that the material brain can do these things without a shred of evidence.

Like I said, the evidence is mounting that consciousness is something that interacts and operates the material brain like you operate your TV or car because there isn't a SHRED OF EVIDENCE that the material brain can initiate something simple like the recall of a specific memory.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

yeah, I think science is getting closer and closer to answering these questions. I'm also a proponent of the hologram or computer program theory. It's the only theory that seems to put all these strange quantum monsters in place. We're being literally driven like a car. I'm thinking perhaps we exists elsewhere in a non material world and are projecting ourselves as we are there, here. Or something crazy like that

eta: We're on wifi
edit on 12-5-2015 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 06:00 PM
link   
I tend to look this question from an information theory point of view. I've actually tried to create self-aware algorithms in the past and the number one problem is trying to make the machine have logical thoughts which then lead to actions. My main goal was simply to create a chat bot which could do more than repeat phrases programmed into it, I wanted it to associate meaning to words so that it could understand what was being said to it and then respond with an original answer. In fact it shouldn't have to wait until it is asked something like a normal chat bot, it should be able to speak when ever it has an impulse to speak.

Even if we are unaware of it, we always think about what we are going to say before we say it. For example my brain is thinking about the sentences I have written in this post before I write them. When trying to emulate this process algorithmically, it becomes very clear that the algorithm required is extremely complicated. The hardest part is deciding the very first word. For example how did I choose the first word of this sentence out of all the possible words and then how did I decide which word should come after that, and then how did I decide when the sentence should end?

These questions are not exactly easy to answer. Emulating the conscious thought process is an almost impossible task imo, but not entirely impossible. Some time ago I created a thread detailing why I think consciousness cannot be totally deterministic and must exploit quantum randomness in order to make our actions unpredictable to some degree. But that doesn't mean there is anything mysterious or mystical about consciousness, I think it can be boiled down to an algorithmic process, it's just a very complex algorithm which requires a source of quantum randomness and a large inflow of data from the external world.

A chat bot which is capable of understanding what is said to it and giving original responses would be a conscious self-aware machine because it would be able to do anything a human could do if you gave it the chance. Technically it would be outputting binary signals which are then translated into text, but those output signals could really control anything they were connected to, like an android body for example. However consciousness doesn't need a body so the goal of strong AI can really be defined as creating a machine with the ability to communicate at a human level.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo

Exactly!

At the end of the day, it's really self evident. You have to have a user to navigate and operate through information that's processed.

How can the materiel brain initiate the recall of a specific memory? How does the material brain know which memory you wish to recall?

Like I said, it's just basic common sense. You need a User to initiate recall.

If I want to recall a word document on my computer, I have to know the name of the file, where the file is located and then I click on the file to access the document. The user has to initiate the access of this document.

It's the same with my car or TV. A user has to operate and navigate through the information.

A materialist claims the brain does everything without a shred of evidence. They just say the brain is so complex and it MUST do this because this is what they want to believe.

I think you're right when you say the non material may experience local material "realities" through us.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   
I just posted a thread very much related to this topic for anyone interested: The nature of self-aware machines. I posted it in the philosophy forum since we are discussing concepts related to consciousness and there isn't a whole lot of hard science involved. This thread should probably be in the philosophy forum too.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

The only way it should go in the philosophy forum is if you're talking about consciousness emerging from the material brain. There's scientific evidence that says otherwise not philosophy and I have already listed some of it here.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


How can the materiel brain initiate the recall of a specific memory? How does the material brain know which memory you wish to recall?

These are not exactly the hardest questions to answer. If we recall a memory there must have been something which triggered it. If I'm having a conversation and someone says the word "balloon" it can trigger a recollection of certain memories which are linked to the concept of a balloon. Or if I start thinking about when I was in grade 9 of school it can trigger certain temporal memories that occurred within that period of time. Or if I start thinking about hot chips it might trigger memories related to the shop down the street where they sell hot chips.

It works that way because our brain is highly interconnected and structured in a hierarchical fashion. When you attempt to remember a certain memory you aren't recalling it from out of thin air, chances are you were given a stimulus which you then used to recall memories associated with that stimulus. You wont necessarily get the exact memory you were after but you will get closely related memories and those memories will be strongly linked to the actual memory you wanted.
edit on 12/5/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)







 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join