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: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

But think about it again for a second. Just before you open your mouth, or press a key, what is that thought which happens to need 10, 20, 50 words to explain it. It happens so fast, nano second but requires 2-4 breaths to say it. Can you catch it just before you formulate the words of thought? It's a feeling. Just a simple low tech feeling, or a bunch of them. More than just a complex algorithm. Until we can give androids emotions, we'll never achieve consciousness in super computers.




posted on May, 12 2015 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder




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.


There's another element to memory recall, I mentioned earlier. When you allow your subconscious to work like a search engine while you focus on other tasks. Exam time comes to mind. Move on to another question then come back to it once the answer surfaces. What's up with that? There's something more than a physiological response going on I think. I literally think of it like google spiders crawling the depths of my memories after I command them to find what I'm looking for. Then go on to drink my coffee or carry on with whatever I'm doing until that answer surfaces.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Sadly this makes no sense and has nothing to do with how memory works. Again, this is a science forum so try providing some actual science to support these notions. If not take it to your thread in the philosophy forum.

First off, there's free recall. Free recall has been studied for years and no you don't need a trigger to recall a memory. In fact we can search our memories for a specific memory which destroys everything you're saying.

If we're just stumbling onto a memory based on some imaginary algorith then whose searching for a memory and how do they know which memory their searching for?

I can free recall 5 memories back to back to back. Who initiates this recall? How can the material brain tell the material brain which memory it wants the material brain to recall?


There are two main methods of accessing memory: recognition and recall. Recognition is the association of an event or physical object with one previously experienced or encountered, and involves a process of comparison of information with memory, e.g. recognizing a known face, true/false or multiple choice questions, etc. Recognition is a largely unconscious process, and the brain even has a dedicated face-recognition area, which passes information directly through the limbic areas to generate a sense of familiarity, before linking up with the cortical path, where data about the person's movements and intentions are processed. Recall involves remembering a fact, event or object that is not currently physically present (in the sense of retrieving a representation, mental image or concept), and requires the direct uncovering of information from memory, e.g. remembering the name of a recognized person, fill-in the blank questions, etc.

Thus, recall involves actively reconstructing the information and requires the activation of all the neurons involved in the memory in question, whereas recognition only requires a relatively simple decision as to whether one thing among others has been encountered before.


www.human-memory.net...

Yes, you are recalling it out of thin air and it's call free recall. You don't need a trigger to recall a specific memory. We even search our brain for a specific memory, whose doing the searching?

edit on 12-5-2015 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


First off, there's free recall. Free recall has been studied for years and no you don't need a trigger to recall a memory. In fact we can search our memories for a specific memory which destroys everything you're saying.

In that case it's your own thoughts which are the trigger. If you are thinking about puppies that may trigger a memory from your childhood, which then triggers a different memory from your childhood, and you start thinking about something totally unrelated to puppies, which then leads to other trains of thought, etc. We can even recall memories about what we were thinking in the past, in other words we can have thoughts about thoughts.


If we're just stumbling onto a memory based on some imaginary algorith then whose searching for a memory and how do they know which memory their searching for?

Well think about when you have a word stuck on "the tip of your tongue". You know there is a specific word which you want to remember but you don't know exactly what it is, you just have a feeling of what it should be. And that feeling is based on the stimulus you received, the difference in that case is that the stimulus wasn't enough to fully trigger the memory. First you will recall other words which are related to the word you want and with any luck those words will lead you to the actual word you wanted, but not always. We know when we have found the correct word because we can compare it with the original stimulus.

Someone may ask you what is the word for the material which packing boxes are made out of and when you finally manage to remember that cardboard is the correct word you know it's correct because you can compare your own definition of cardboard with what the other person asked for (the stimulus). The same logic can apply to all other types of memory recall, whether it be a word or something more complicated. To say that there is no algorithm for memory recall is to say that memory recall cannot be mathematically defined and must have some sort of transcendental property, which is completely unscientific.
edit on 12/5/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo


When you allow your subconscious to work like a search engine while you focus on other tasks. Exam time comes to mind. Move on to another question then come back to it once the answer surfaces. What's up with that?

Well you just answered your own question, the subconscious mind does some computations in the background while your conscious mind does other things. I think the subconscious mind is really what controls memory recall. Our conscious mind doesn't know exactly where all the memories are stored in our brain, which is why it will ask our subconscious mind for help. The subconscious layer might also choose to filter out certain memories requested by the conscious layer if those memories are deemed to be too disturbing or devastating to the psyche of the conscious mind. This is how memories can be suppressed and hidden even though the conscious mind didn't attempt to delete those memories from storage.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Again, pure gobbledy gook without a shred of evidence. You were right when you tried to push people to your philosophy post. This sounds more like fantasy.

You said:

To say that there is no algorithm for memory recall is to say that memory recall cannot be mathematically defined and must have some sort of transcendental property, which is completely unscientific.

Again, pure nonsense.

No to say there's no algorithm is to say there's no evidence to support this silly notion. What algorithm? Where is this algorithm located? how does this algorithm work and more importantly who initiates this algorithm to recall a specific memory and how does this algorithm know which memory you're going to recall?

Where is the scientific evidence to support this notion?

You can't just say there must be this magical algorithm because it's the only way to support what I want to believe.

At this point, these things can't be mathematically defined know matter how many times you click your heels and wish for it.

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...

Like I said, there's not a shred of evidence to support the notion that the brain initiates things like memory recall in the brain.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   
It is a mystery is it not ?

That which initiates/creates thought as opposed to viewing it's process
And all we have are our thoughts
But can not say what causes them



edit on 12-5-2015 by artistpoet because: Typo



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Oh I know the subconscious is responsible, but that's as far as I'm willing to go. What it does behind the scenes is beyond me. If you try to consciously interfere with the data it's returning, you end up with words that sound the same or have the same suffix. In fact, memory isn't even stored together in the same place, it's fragmented god knows where. Even people with half their head taken out, specifically the hippocampus, and can still have memories that shouldn't be.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Circular garbage, I can't believe people bother to entertain this.

Just throw out science all together, make up your own BS.

For realz?



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


You can't just say there must be this magical algorithm because it's the only way to support what I want to believe.

I'm not sure what a "magical algorithm" is, since all algorithms are precisely defined according to very strict and formal languages. The way I see it is that math can explain absolutely everything, from the universe to consciousness. Think about what it would even mean to say the universe didn't behave according to mathematical rules, that's the same as saying there are no rules at all, fairies are real and god exists, and god can do anything because logic has been thrown right out the window . At the end of the day information theory can explain absolutely everything and if you deny that you're the one living in a magical make believe land.


What algorithm? Where is this algorithm located?

How should I know what the algorithm is, obviously if anyone knew we would already have self-aware machines. All I know is that it must be an extremely complex algorithm with a very complicated flow structure. However I have spent a considerable amount of time thinking about neural net algorithms and the properties that such nets must possess in order to replicate consciousness. The network structure must be highly symmetrical, regular, modular, hierarchical, dynamic, and plastic. The computation flow of the network should be highly distributed, parallel, recursive, adaptive, and synchronous.
edit on 12/5/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Like I said, there's not a shred of evidence to support the notion that the brain initiates things like memory recall in the brain.


Yea you know, getting brain damage and changing personality, losing memories... that kinda stuff... just not evidence... never happens, except it does all time.

Are you freaking kidding me?



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
Circular garbage, I can't believe people bother to entertain this.

Just throw out science all together, make up your own BS.

For realz?


Yeah for Realzzz. When real neuroscience doctors sit around and discuss the possibility of consciousness being non-local it becomes az realz az it getz



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlySolo

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
Circular garbage, I can't believe people bother to entertain this.

Just throw out science all together, make up your own BS.

For realz?


Yeah for Realzzz. When real neuroscience doctors sit around and discuss the possibility of consciousness being non-local it becomes az realz az it getz

Saying that consciousness is non-local (not generated by the brain) still doesn't say there is no algorithm for replicating consciousness. It matters not how distant consciousness is from the brain because algorithmically speaking they can be as close or as far apart as I want them to be. I can still simulate it if I know how it works. To say it cannot be simulated is equal to saying it cannot be defined and therefore doesn't exist.
edit on 12/5/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Like I said, there's not a shred of evidence to support the notion that the brain initiates things like memory recall in the brain.


Yea you know, getting brain damage and changing personality, losing memories... that kinda stuff... just not evidence... never happens, except it does all time.

Are you freaking kidding me?


Getting brain damage - losing memories or changes in personalities is still not indicative that all of those things are caused by the brain. That's like saying my TV or radio is responsible for what I see or hear. If I smash my TV, there's still a tv signal. It's illogical to flat out say the radio is responsible for creating music.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo


If I smash my TV, there's still a tv signal.

Assuming consciousness is the signal, and our bodies are the receivers, it can still be simulated if we can define the signal and the receiver. But if ask me it seems kind of weird to say consciousness is transmitted to us in signal form, from where is this signal coming and why haven't we detected it? And why do we all think so differently if we're all running on the same signal?



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

originally posted by: FlySolo

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
Circular garbage, I can't believe people bother to entertain this.

Just throw out science all together, make up your own BS.

For realz?


Yeah for Realzzz. When real neuroscience doctors sit around and discuss the possibility of consciousness being non-local it becomes az realz az it getz

Saying that consciousness is non-local (not generated by the brain) still doesn't say there is no algorithm for replicating consciousness. It matters not how distant consciousness is from the brain because algorithmically speaking they can be as close or as far apart as I want them to be. I can still simulate it if I know how it works. To say it cannot be simulated is equal to saying it cannot be defined and therefore doesn't exist.


I love these discussions.





still doesn't say there is no algorithm for replicating consciousness.


Oh, you're going to need an algorithm alright. A big one, regardless of local or not. And what we understand now about quantum, is those objects in that algorithm won't need to travel space time; thoughts can be non -local. You can simulate it, but you'll never get a computer to feel emotion and without that, all you've got is an AI zombie.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder




And why do we all think so differently if we're all running on the same signal?


Because like a radio receiving set we can tune into different frequencies / stations



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo




you'll never get a computer to feel emotion and without that, all you've got is an AI zombie.


Or give it a soul



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Again, this is a bunch of pie in the sky nonsense. Just like the last debater you don't present any evidence at all. Here's the key line:

How should I know what the algorithm is, obviously if anyone knew we would already have self-aware machines. All I know is that it must be an extremely complex algorithm with a very complicated flow structure.

This is a statement devoid of any meaning as it pertains to this conversation. You're saying that there must be this complex algorithm and yet have have zero evidence that consciousness follows any mathematical model. In fact, it has been shown simply by things like the free will theorem that consciousness doesn't follow any set of mathematical algorithm that can be determined.

You're simply speaking from the point of view of your belief. You think this MUST be the case because it's what you believe.

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.


Penrose also reached these conclusions.


You don't think maths tells us anything about the real world then? Well, let's start with the Gödelian argument, anyway. Gödel proved the incompleteness of arithmetic, that is, that there are true statements in arithmetic which can never be proved arithmetically. Actually, the proof goes much wider than that. He provides a way of generating a statement, in any formal algebraic system, which we can see is true, but which cannot be proved within the system. Penrose's point is that any mechanical, algorithmic, process is based on a formal system of some kind. So there will always be some truths that computers can't prove - but which human beings can see are true! So human thought can't be just the running of an algorithm.

Nonsense! For a start, I don't believe 'inputs' and 'outputs' to human beings can be defined in those terms - reality is not digital. But the whole notion of a person's own algorithm is absurd! The point about computers is that their algorithms are defined by a programmer and kept in a recognised place, clearly distinguished from data, inputs, and hardware, so it's easy to say what they are in advance. With a brain, there is nothing you can point to in advance as the 'brain algorithm'. If you insist on interpreting the brain as running an algorithm, you just have to wait and see which bits of the brain and which bits of the rest of the person and their environment turn out to be relevant to their 'outputs' in what ways and then construct the algorithm to suit. We can never know what the total algorithm is until all the inputs and outputs have been dealt with. In short, it turns out not to be surprising that a person can't see the truth of their own Gödel statement, because they have to dead before anyone can even decide what it is!


LOL,

What you're saying doesn't make any sense and I wish you would provide some scientific evidence to support anything you're saying.



posted on May, 12 2015 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Why haven't we detected it? We're only beginning! CERN, Higgs, Dark Matter 95% of the Universe and we have only theories.
But it's a GREAT way to get ubiquitous consciousness out to the universe. Overlay a class or set of instructions to continuously stream the universe without even crossing space/time. Just like a class in a computer program. I think you're familiar but if not, it's just a cookie-cutter code which can be replicated over and over again. Like creating a new character in a video game, m/f, height, hair color etc, new car. You don't need to write new code each time a new player is added. Instead it's called a class. A class of instructions for a specific thing. So, theoretically, a "tree" class could be streamlined instantaneously over top our 'classical physics' and defying entropy, a seed is formed from self-organizing cells.

oh and why are we different? Yeah, that part is the dichotomy of life because we are all a sum of our own experiences.
edit on 12-5-2015 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join