Cybernetics tells us Conscious Energy must exist

Kashai
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

Since we know that a lot of what goes on in the universe is indeed regulated by strict formulas, the hope for free will should rely not so much in randomness as in "fuzziness". It is unlikely that the laws of nature hide a completely random property; on the other hand, they could be "fuzzy", in that they may prescribe a behavior but with a broad range of possible degrees.

You have just admitted that reality is not random, just difficult to understand as non-random.

You have essentially admitted you are wrong.

Any thoughts?

I am perfectly fine with being wrong although I'm not so sure I said reality was completely random. I think the confusion started when I asked how do you know the difference between a random memory and a willed memory. Is there a difference? I "may" have let my rhetoric run a little rampant to prove a point but I lost track. Ok, I was wrong but I admitted that already.

So I tracked down where I think I got my ideas from. I came across this in psych class a while back and was intrigued by it but it was pretty obscure back then.
en.wikipedia.org...

McFadden proposes that the digital information from neurons is integrated to form a conscious electromagnetic information (cemi) field in the brain. Consciousness is suggested to be the component of this field that is transmitted back to neurons, and communicates its state externally.

Thoughts are viewed as electromagnetic representations of neuronal information, and the experience of free will in our choice of actions is argued to be our subjective experience of the cemi field acting on our neurons.

McFadden's view of freewill is deterministic. Neurons generate patterns in the EM field, which in turn modulate the firing of particular neurons. There is only conscious agency in the sense that the field or its download to neurons is conscious, but the processes of the brain themselves are driven by deterministic electromagnetic interactions. The feel of subjective experience or qualia corresponds to a particular configuration of the cemi field. This field representation is in this theory argued to integrate parts into a whole that has meaning, so a face is not seen as a random collection of features, but as somebody's face. The integration of information in the field is also suggested to resolve the binding/combination problem.

So we have this "experience" of free will but its linked intimately with the brain. Consciousness would be the electromagnetic field produced by the brain so it's not in the brain structure itself. The field disapates once the brain stops functioning.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


Actually one of the rather fun things to do in an internet forum, is for a member to present data in a casual way. The pit being that other members must find data to refute the statement.


Clinical research has, in recent history vilified the matter of "Near Death Experiences". Based upon clinical research, a person having an NDE has memories. This related to events that did occur and are consistent, with events related to
securing his, or her survival. So Basically (Frank Hypothetically) has a Heart attack while watching an American football game.

So here is the problem.....about 10 to 15 seconds after the heart stops the capacity of the brain to form images or hallucinations, functionally is nonsense (especially given a materialist perspective).

But when, based upon clinical, 20% of Earths population, come near death, that does not happen. What does happen beyond the apparent spiritual experiences are memories. These memories related to what the ambulance drivers, happened to be talking about that day.

As well as what specifically was going on in the Emergency room where they were admitted.

There is no valid reason to suggest human decisions are random.

And if you are having trouble understanding why, I would be more than happy to elaborate.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


NDEs are interesting. I have come across a couple of interesting links on the subject.
www.near-death.com...
www.theatlantic.com...

Neurologically, OBEs are a form of bodily illusion arising from a temporary dissociation of visual and proprioceptive representations -- normally these are coordinated, so that one views the world, including one's body, from the perspective of one's own eyes, one's head. OBEs, as Henrik Ehrsson and his fellow researchers in Stockholm have elegantly shown, can be produced experimentally, by using simple equipment -- video goggles, mannequins, rubber arms, etc. -- to confuse one's visual input and one's proprioceptive input and create an uncanny sense of disembodiedness.

I generally take the position that this is just neurochemistry where there is nothing leaving the body. I am interested in hearing how this is related to non random decision making.

neoholographic
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

The definition you posted supports everything that I'm saying. You should have tried to understand the post before you responded.

Cybernetics has been applied to many different disciplines. Whether it's biology, computer science or psychology. A good book to read is Psycho Cybernetics written by Maxwell Maltz.

In Psycho Cybernetics Maltz talks about the self image and how we can control our self image and change our lives. Many people have read this book and applied it to their life.

Who can control the self image? THE USER

Who can recall specific memories at will? THE USER

Who knows the difference between these specific memories? THE USER

So yes, Cybernetics in the context of biology, computer science and psychology supports what I'm saying.

You can look here and see some of the other disciplines that incorporate Cybernetics.

Cybernetics

edit on 9-10-2013 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

systems don't have USERS. They can be created in the example of mechanical or computer systems - however the System itself will interact with other systems (people even perhaps) based on initial conditions and various feedback loops - not the intent of the user.

You are imagining a system as being closed therefore to account for the behavoir you witness in a given system you imagine it as having intent, will, or ??? (can't think of another word) when what you are witnessing is the systems natural reaction to various inputs.

You can't beat a system but you can game one - as we all see in financial, social, and game systems.

A system is a system is a system. All systems effect and are effected by other systems.

Systems are single goaled - survival being paramount. A system - any system will do anything to insure it's survival. It's an inherent property of systems. Other properties may (and always do emerge). The Law of unintended consequences comes to mind.

I'm not denying the possiblity of unseen and unmeasured systems. Systems of thought, of energy, of spirit and their conceivable interactions with more knowable systems. Nothing of the sort.

You are reading a supernatural element into something that is truly natural and in the case of Cybernetics very mechanical.

reply to post by neoholographic

And this here is just gibberish.

It's like a TV with several TV stations but only one of them works. Now if you unplug the TV, it stops working because there is no electricity. Just like the brain only the brain can do this randomly like this.....Brains function randomly without the need for any user as you can see there is just pure randomness occurring right now. It might not make sense but it's like fffhhrfxaetyonxs. Random letters. See that? Let me demonstrate again...54321. 500 random memories. Let me do it again....done.

You do realize this was a parody on your "logic". No, maybe not.

I read it a few times now and nothing in your example supports what you are saying.

reply to post by Kashai

Scientists from the University of Michigan recorded electroencephalogram (EEG) signals in nine anesthetized rats after inducing cardiac arrest. Within the first 30 seconds after the heart had stopped, all the mammals displayed a surge of highly synchronized brain activity that had features associated with consciousness and visual activation. The burst of electrical patterns even exceeded levels seen during a normal, awake state.

Surge of brain activity may explain near-death experience, study says

reply to post by ZetaRediculian



Everything humans and animals experience, while they are alive is the result of internal representations. Meaning, that when a individual see's something (as an example). The image they are seeing is a representation of what they
are looking at based on the brains ability to present that interpretation.

In the case of a Near Death Experience when oxygen to the brain is interrupted. The brain no longer has the ability to generate any internal representations. Despite that fact and given the common scenario of a person. Having a heart attack at home and an ambulance is called. With pick up and delivery to an ER in about 25 minutes after loss of consciousness and 7 minutes elapsed prior to pick up. There is really no way an individual could be having any experiences consistent with observing events in real time.

I am not exactly clear on this conclusion you have formed related to random thinking. Are you claiming that individual decision process's are random?

reply to post by Kashai

I am not exactly clear on this conclusion you have formed related to random thinking. Are you claiming that individual decision process's are random?

Your not clear because I haven't reached any conclusion. Some of my posts shouldn't be taken that way despite the way they are interprited.

It's something I'm exploring in the discussion.

What I am trying to convey is that there doesn't seem to be a way to determine if something is random or willed. If everything is causal, does it just seem like randomness? Is our sense of free will just that, a sense, or rather, an illusion?

If I'm looking at a pile of ants, how do you determine random, free willed or even deterministic actions?

The article I linked earlier gave an example of a chicken. Does it have free will? We can't predict it's actions, so are these random actions or is it deciding to move in a certain direction because it willed it?

So, I really don't know. I mean I enjoy feeling like my decisions are freely decided but I do know it's possible to only "feel" like I made a decision and that there could be many factors that determined the outcome.

For the NDE, I'm not sure that there isn't brain activity during those experiences. The article I linked was about a fairly recent study where they found increased brain activity some time after the heart stopped.

It is also possible to recreate NDEs. G-loc, hallucinogens, seizures, etc... Can all cause the same effect.

Again, I'm not decided on these ideas. "Machine Elves" is the thing Makes me think there is something "other" than brain stuff going on.

Either way, it's interesting.

reply to post by FyreByrd


Nothing you said made sense. It's just gibberish that shows a materialist interpretation of consciousness belongs in Fairytale Land with Snow White from Once Upon a Time. You said:

systems don't have USERS. They can be created in the example of mechanical or computer systems - however the System itself will interact with other systems (people even perhaps) based on initial conditions and various feedback loops - not the intent of the user.

You are imagining a system as being closed therefore to account for the behavoir you witness in a given system you imagine it as having intent, will, or ??? (can't think of another word) when what you are witnessing is the systems natural reaction to various inputs.

What in the world does this nonsense mean? The fact is you're trying to lock consciousness into the prison of the material brain without a shred of evidence. This convoluted mess is what you wish to be correct. You raised another red flag when you said:

You are reading a supernatural element into something that is truly natural

Who said anything about the supernatural? I have talked about things like the Quantum Mind or Consciousness being fundamental to reality as we see in theories like Biocentrism and from Sir Roger Penrose. Who mentioned anything about the supernatural.

This is a common tactic because you can't debate what I'm saying. So you post some convoluted gobbledy-gook and claim it's natural and then you try to discredit what I'm saying by using the word supernatural because you can't debate what I actually said.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


You keep mentioning randomness but what are you talking about? You said:

What I am trying to convey is that there doesn't seem to be a way to determine if something is random or willed. If everything is causal, does it just seem like randomness? Is our sense of free will just that, a sense, or rather, an illusion?

Yes there is. We have been doing it in studies for years. We can show memory recall occurs at will because specific neurons fire when a person recalls the specific memory. There's nothing random about. What they did in the one study I posted is call free memory recall. The subjects watched clips and the researcher told them to recall a memory from the videos they saw. They don't give the subjects a specific memory to recall. The subjects recall which memory they wish to recall at will.

When the subject recalls this memory it's not associated with any random brain activity. The recall is correlated with a specific network of neurons firing when they recall a specific memory at will.

Nobody is debating free will. We're talking about will. A person can have will and it isn't free will. A person can will to walk to the store but walking to the store can be determined by other factors like the User. Let me put will in a sentence and maybe you can understand.

The Governor had the will to parole the prisoner.

She tried to kick her drug habit, but lacked the will to end her addiction.

I gave them the information but it was against my will.

The fact that your playing dumb or you really don't know what will means, shows you're stuck in a paradigm. Will means deliberate intent.

So when I say a person recalls a specific memory at will it's when they deliberately intend to recall a specific memory.

Like now, I deliberately intend to recall a memory from the 7th grade. When I do this, we know that this deliberate intention is correlated to specific neurons firing in the material brain.

This has nothing to do with random brain activity. How does random brain activity tell the material brain which specific memories you intend to recall?

How does random brain activity know the difference between a specific memory from little league baseball and a memory from boot camp?

So you keep talking about random activity but there's nothing to support your claim as it pertains to specific memory recall.

This is Fantasy island stuff and this is the problem for those stuck in this paradigm. They can't explain how the material brain or random brain activity can tell the material brain which specific memory they wish for the material brain to recall or how the material brain knows the difference between these specific memories.

reply to post by neoholographic


I'm really not clear on what you are saying. So I think you are saying that there is a user inside us comprised of energy that determines what we decide and that all the information is stored in the brain.

That would mean when this user is apart from the brain, it has no information to choose from so it's wholly dependent on the brain which makes the user pretty much useless outside the brain.

So I am very lost on what your point is. Maybe someone else can explain it?

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


Again, this makes no sense. I said the User interacts with the information processed by the material brain not that the User is dependent on the information the material brain process. Have you been reading what I have been saying?

It's like the computer. Just because you shut off the computer it doesn't mean the User is dependent on the information they gathered on the internet. This has been my whole point. The User interacts with the information the machine(brain) processes. It's existence isn't dependent on this information, it just interacts with this information.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


Essentially all life functions to survive and as far as chickens there really is nothing random about there behavior. I mean they eat, sleep and so on in what in general a consistent way. As far as making decisions....

Chicken intelligence

reply to post by Kashai


Interesting documentary. I'll have to check it out.

Here's another example that show that consciousness as an emergent property of the material brain is just kooky talk.

Say you take a vacation to Vegas in 1990 and in 1995. When you experience something in Vegas in 1990, a specific network of neurons fire and store that memory. The same thing happens in 1995. When you recall a specific memory from 1995 or 1990, the same or similar neurons fire and play back the memory you wish to recall.

Again, how can random brain activity tell the material brain that you want a specific memory from 1990 or from 1995? How does random brain activity know the difference between a memory in Vegas from 1990 and one from 1995?

Let's say you recall a memory of your trip to Vegas in 1995 and then seconds later you say,"Oh, that didn't happen in 1995 but when I went to Vegas in 1990." How does random brain activity or the material brain correct itself? How does it know the difference between a trip in 1990 and one in 1995?

At the end of the day, a User has to interact with the information that the material brain processes. Sadly, you will continue to hear convoluted answers and Ted Kaczynski type responses from those trapped in the prison of the paradigm that consciousness is an emergent property of the material brain.

reply to post by neoholographic


I think you are missing it or playing dumb yourself. The whole discussion of randomness and will go hand in hand. I posted a very well thought out article on the topic. It it even mentions Penrose Who you mention also.

...but I'm sure it supports everything you say.

In their quest for the source of randomness in human free will, both neurophysiologists like John Eccles and physicists like Roger Penrose have proposed that quantum effects are responsible for creating randomness in the processes of the human brain. Whether chance and free will can be equated (free will is supposed to lead to rational and deterministic decisions, not random ones) and whether Quantum Theory is the only possible source of randomness is debatable

I'm having a hard time taking you seriously and am getting bored of your predictable retorts.

Nothing you posted answered the question of distinguishing randomness from non randomness.

reply to post by neoholographic

Have you been reading what I have been saying?

Yes and it changes and morphs depending some random factor.

Sometimes brain function isn't specific to certain structures other times it is.

What is your point? It's impossible to have a discussion With you.

You don't even know the subjects you are discussing. It's obvious. It's just made up BS to prove you are right.

You are right. OK?

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


You must have a reading comprehension problem. What does anything you posted have to do with random brain activity recalling specific memories? Do you understand that Penrose is talking about quantum effects playing a part in the human brain?

I'm all for doing more research into Penrose and the Quantum Mind. This opens up the doors to life after death, twin telepathy, psychic ability and more because the brain would then be able to use quantum effects like entanglement, non locality and superposition.

The Quantum Mind would be the User that interacts with the classical, material brain.

This has nothing to do with random brain activity recalling specific memories.

When you talk of randomness, you're thinking of some blind, random process. This isn't what Penrose is talking about.

Quantum computation in brain microtubules? The Penrose–Hameroff ‘Orch OR‘ model of consciousness

Hameroff Stuart
Abstract

Potential features of quantum computation could explain enigmatic aspects of consciousness. The Penrose—Hameroff model (orchestrated objective reduction: ‘Orch OR’) suggests that quantum superposition and a form of quantum computation occur in microtubules—cylindrical protein lattices of the cell cytoskeleton within the brain's neurons. Microtubules couple to and regulate neural–level synaptic functions, and they may be ideal quantum computers because of dynamical lattice structure, quantum–level subunit states and intermittent isolation from environmental interactions. In addition to its biological setting, the Orch OR proposal differs in an essential way from technologically envisioned quantum computers in which collapse, or reduction to classical output states, is caused by environmental decoherence (hence introducing randomness). In the Orch OR proposal, reduction of microtubule quantum superposition to classical output states occurs by an objective factor: Roger Penrose's quantum gravity threshold stemming from instability in Planck–scale separations (superpositions) in spacetime geometry. Output states following Penrose's objective reduction are neither totally deterministic nor random, but influenced by a non–computable factor ingrained in fundamental spacetime. Taking a modern pan–psychist view in which protoconscious experience and Platonic values are embedded in Planck–scale spin networks, the Orch OR model portrays consciousness as brain activities linked to fundamental ripples in spacetime geometry.

Here's a key point.

In addition to its biological setting, the Orch OR proposal differs in an essential way from technologically envisioned quantum computers in which collapse, or reduction to classical output states, is caused by environmental decoherence (hence introducing randomness). In the Orch OR proposal, reduction of microtubule quantum superposition to classical output states occurs by an objective factor: Roger Penrose's quantum gravity threshold stemming from instability in Planck–scale separations (superpositions) in spacetime geometry. Output states following Penrose's objective reduction are neither totally deterministic nor random, but influenced by a non–computable factor ingrained in fundamental spacetime. Taking a modern pan–psychist view in which protoconscious experience and Platonic values are embedded in Planck–scale spin networks, the Orch OR model portrays consciousness as brain activities linked to fundamental ripples in spacetime geometry.

Again, what they call protoconsciousnes is embedded in planck-scale geometry, therefore consciousness is a fundamental to reality at Planck Scales.

What does this have to do with random brain activity and specific memory recall? The brain activity is specifically linked to the protoconsciounsness embedded in the geometry of space-time at Planck scales. Where's your random brain activity recalling specific memories?

What is Panpsychism?

In philosophy, panpsychism is the view that mind or soul (Greek: ψυχή) is a universal feature of all things, and the primordial feature from which all others are derived. The panpsychist sees him or herself as a mind in a world of minds.

Panpsychism is one of the oldest philosophical theories, and can be ascribed to philosophers like Thales, Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz and William James. Panpsychism can also be seen in eastern philosophies such as Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism. During the 19th century, Panpsychism was the default theory in philosophy of mind, but it saw a decline during the latter half of the 20th century with the rise of logical positivism.[1] The recent interest in the hard problem of consciousness has once again made panpsychism a mainstream theory.

Again, you're all over the place but if you're now agreeing with Penrose and the Quantum Mind, you're agreeing with me. I have been talking about the Quantum Mind throughout the thread and how more research is needed in these areas. Welcome aboard to Panpsychism, life after death, twin telepathy, remote viewing , psychic ability and more.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


In relation to your link on NDE's the problem is that the content of these experiences.

Also include events specific to the patient insofar as conversations, had by first responders and Emergency room staff, the conditions of other patients in the emergency room. You see in such cases when the person wakes up they not only relate to having a spiritual experience but, also whatever occurred prior to the spiritual experience in detail

As I mentioned, what we perceive with the senses are totally the result of internal representations. As far as electrical activity being evident in the brain of rodents 30 seconds after the heart stops. Clearly they cannot respond in relation to their experience while humans can.

It seems to me that such a study could easily be preformed on human volunteer's very close to death.

In interpretation I can see where this is an effort of the user to retrieve data.

From my perspective even plants have souls, its the Native American in me.

Any thoughts?

neoholographic
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

Nothing you said made sense. It's just gibberish that shows a materialist interpretation of consciousness belongs in Fairytale Land with Snow White from Once Upon a Time. You said:


What in the world does this nonsense mean? The fact is you're trying to lock consciousness into the prison of the material brain without a shred of evidence. This convoluted mess is what you wish to be correct. You raised another red flag when you said:

You are reading a supernatural element into something that is truly natural

Who said anything about the supernatural? I have talked about things like the Quantum Mind or Consciousness being fundamental to reality as we see in theories like Biocentrism and from Sir Roger Penrose. Who mentioned anything about the supernatural.

This is a common tactic because you can't debate what I'm saying. So you post some convoluted gobbledy-gook and claim it's natural and then you try to discredit what I'm saying by using the word supernatural because you can't debate what I actually said.

First off - you are showing an ignorance of basic cybernetics (the name calling is a tell).

I'll try one more time.

A 'System' may be designed and the designer may have a purpose or goal in mind for that system (say a car).

The System, itself has no goal. It will just sit there and rot without outside OUTSIDE input from another system. Cybernetics is the science of command and control - how one system can influence another through outside input and various feedback mechanisms.

You imply that the system itself (the car) has a motive.

Supernatural - outside of measurable reality. Actually it should be supranatural.

By ascribing an attribute outside the scope of a thing to that very same thing is supranatural. In the case of the car you ascibing will and intent where there is none (unless Car 54 or Kit exist in reality).

You are reading into Cybernetic theory much more then is there. Sucessive iterations of cybernetics in different fields have theorized how intent, will, etch effect biological and social systems - but those are not considered Cybernetics.

There are Soft System - about which you are talking.
There are Hard Systems - which is what Cybernetics talks about.

Your conclusion may well be correct - but your blanket statement about Cybernetics is inaccurate in the extreme.

Give me a quote or two to support your statement.

You give no supporting material to back up your claim.

In support of your claim I'll quote from Ervin Laszlo's "The Systems View of the Word: A Holistic Vision for Our Time" which happens to be on my desk at the moment:

From Chapter 4: The Systems View of Ourselves on Conscoiusness Page 66

"Now, it is quite impossible to explain subjectivity (consciousness in the basic sense) by reference to the particular structure and behavior of the human organism and its brain and nervous system. If we grant that people have have subjectivity, we have to grant that chimpanzees and dogs have it, since they, too, are endowed with brains and organs for perception, and show signs of puposive behavior. But if we grant this, then we are forced to admit that all organisms possessing a nervous system and evidencing goal-oriented behavior have subjectivity." (Note that Buddhists do)

It would be better to include the entire sub-chapter but that's too long a quote.

A couple of books that might be of assistance and that speak of Biological, Social and Economic Systems.

The Web of Life by Frijot Capra
The Macroscope by Joel de Rosney pespmc1.vub.ac.be... for full text online version.
Note particularly Chapter two, Section one: History of a Global Approach (The System ic Approach; The Serch for New Tools: 'Intelligent' Machines; From Cybernetics to systems Dynamics)