Cybernetics tells us Conscious Energy must exist

reply to post by FyreByrd


This post proves my points about Cybernetics.

Your posts is an example of what I call Cybernetic Ignorance. No matter what I actually say, you don't want to deviate from your set goal. You want to debate what you want to debate not anything I actually said.

An example of a Cybernetic system is a thermostat. If you have the temperature set at 70 and the temperature deviates to 65, the furnace will automatically kick on to get back to your set goal. Like I said, your post is an example of Cybernetic Ignorance.

You have a set goal to debate the supernatural. So even though I never talked about anything supernatural, you want to debate the supernatural instead of debating what I said.

You have a set goal to debate someone saying the car has a motive, yet this type of nonsense was never mentioned. I have constantly said the User interacts with the machine. How that implies the machine has a motive belongs in a Nancy Drew mystery.

You have a set goal to debate your view of Cybernetics and anyone that deviates from your view is wrong. There's many disciplines that incorporate Cybernetics. If you don't agree with them, that's fine but I don't agree with you. If people want to read about the disciplines that incorporate Cybernetics, you can go here:

en.wikipedia.org...

PS - You don't have look at these things based on fyrebyrd's view of Cybernetics. You can deviate from his set goal LOL

At the end of the day, I wish you would debate things that I actually said. Can you quote what I said that supports what you're debating? Please, no more Cybernetic Ignorance.

neoholographic
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

This post proves my points about Cybernetics.

Your posts is an example of what I call Cybernetic Ignorance. No matter what I actually say, you don't want to deviate from your set goal. You want to debate what you want to debate not anything I actually said.

An example of a Cybernetic system is a thermostat. If you have the temperature set at 70 and the temperature deviates to 65, the furnace will automatically kick on to get back to your set goal. Like I said, your post is an example of Cybernetic Ignorance.

You have a set goal to debate the supernatural. So even though I never talked about anything supernatural, you want to debate the supernatural instead of debating what I said.

You have a set goal to debate someone saying the car has a motive, yet this type of nonsense was never mentioned. I have constantly said the User interacts with the machine. How that implies the machine has a motive belongs in a Nancy Drew mystery.

You have a set goal to debate your view of Cybernetics and anyone that deviates from your view is wrong. There's many disciplines that incorporate Cybernetics. If you don't agree with them, that's fine but I don't agree with you. If people want to read about the disciplines that incorporate Cybernetics, you can go here:

en.wikipedia.org...

PS - You don't have look at these things based on fyrebyrd's view of Cybernetics. You can deviate from his set goal LOL

At the end of the day, I wish you would debate things that I actually said. Can you quote what I said that supports what you're debating? Please, no more Cybernetic Ignorance.

edit on 11-10-2013 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

Cybernetics tells us Conscious Energy must exist - your title. As I've said "Cybernetics says nothing of the Sort". No references, no sources - just an inaccurate statement.

neoholographic
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.

edit on 11-10-2013 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

Oh yes, I see all your points here are fantastically made. I Agree with you and everything you say. Thanks for the clarification.

Kashai
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.

yes, the study is only suggestive of a possible explanation.

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

There was a study that found d m t in the spinal fluid of dying patients. I can't find the link though...

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

Possibly

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

Any thoughts?

Thoughts? Well if you are looking for the soul scientifically and find it, you will have only reduced it to the mechanics of the universe. I'm not against there being a soul. It's like an inante, intuitive knowledge we have but not quantifiable. Trying to deduce it existence based on TVs and cable modems is a bit silly and pointless.

reply to post by neoholographic

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

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

Oh, I see when I talk of randomness, it's some "blind" random process. And when Penrose is talking about "randomness in the processes of the human brain" it's a completely different type of randomness and has nothing to do with memory recall because that's not a brain process. I completely see your point here. I better start paying better attention to what I'm reading. My reading comprehension is lacking. How could I have totally missed this?

Please teach me more about the different types of randomnesses and what Penrose is really talking about. Please.

Anyway, so as you have so eloquently made your points, I have some more points around
willful recall. Now I completely agree with you that there can't be any randomness with regards to recall.

So since its willed, that means if you choose not to have a memory, you don't. Your user has complete control of what it chooses to remember. So for now on whenever I post something, I will include the word "Army" which will trigger you to remember your time in the army. Of course, if you choose not to, you won't. I can do it watch....see that! It's like a TV.

So if I am sitting still and I do not wish to remember anything and random memories ...I mean, memories I willed by mistake keep popping in my head, does that mean my brain user is just not trained properly? So how do you know the difference between a memory that is willed by mistake, a memory that is predetermined an one that is completely willed. now knowing that random memories don't occur, should we inform someone in the ARMY in the field of...brain science?

reply to post by neoholographic

Nobody is debating free will. We're talking about will.

Ohhhhhhhhhhh. I keep getting those confused. So will is completely deterministic and free will is the random one. I get it now. And the sentences were a huge help.

A person can will to walk to the store but walking to the store can be determined by other factors like the User

Yes, I see exactly what you are talking about.

The researchers couldn't predict which neurons would fire. They could predict which clip the subject would recall based on which neurons were firing.

So if they saw certain neurons firing, they could predict that they were watching the Simpsons. But they couldn't predict which neurons would fire based on the clip. So you are saying if they watched a certain clip different neurons would fire each time making it unpredictable or random. And so when different neurons fired they knew which clip but it didn't work the other way.

Basically. A=B
B A

Yes, I am following your basic logic.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


Time Is a form of communication
Consciousness transcends all states
that can be perceived as matter
Matter communicates its existence
to consciousness through time.

Juan

From my perspective a Universe that can generate life is alive. So in relation to addressing this specific issue scientifically , I do not feel spirituality can be reduced in any context. The issue of heaven an of God who responds emotionally in Gods dealing with humans. Is potentially indicative of some aspect of reality where what we perceive and acknowledge as objective is subjective.

Therefore what we commonly define as subjective in this hypothetical aspect of reality is what is real.

As far as TV's, cars and thermostats our ancestors did not have these things.

reply to post by Kashai


Interesting comments and I don't disagree with them. Forgive my ignorance, but who is Juan?

reply to post by neoholographic

There's nothing random about. What they did in the one study I posted is call free memory recall.

Free memory recall

Free recall is a basic paradigm in the psychological study of memory. In this paradigm, participants study a list of items on each trial, and then are prompted to recall the items in any order (hence the name "free" 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.

Wow. So the researchers gave them clips to watch and had them recall the clips but didn't tell them to recall the clips. And since we are not talking about free will, we are talking about will so when they recalled these clips without being specifically told to recall them, they did it freely against their will.

So " free memory recall" has nothing to do with free will, it has to do with memories that are just willed without being told to will them. Got it

A person can will to walk to the store but walking to the store can be determined by other factors like the User

So if a person can "will" to walk to the store without the need for the "user" does that mean that "willing" is happening in the brain or is there another user to account for this? and walking to the store has nothing to do with free will.

I must admit it is hard to to keep track of all different types of wills and different types of randomness and all the confusing research that proves exactly what you are saying.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


That is my real first name.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


You sound more and more like Zeta Kaczynski with each rambling post. Your desperation is obvious because you're all over the place and instead of taking the time to actually understand what your reading, you just ramble more and more nonsense. This is what you said:

Oh, I see when I talk of randomness, it's some "blind" random process. And when Penrose is talking about "randomness in the processes of the human brain" it's a completely different type of randomness and has nothing to do with memory recall because that's not a brain process. I completely see your point here. I better start paying better attention to what I'm reading. My reading comprehension is lacking. How could I have totally missed this?

Because you didn't take the time to read what you posted and the paper I linked to you keep making these silly comments. This is what was said in the link you quoted:

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

Penrose is talking about quantum effects because the randomness he's talking about is the ability of the brain to randomly choose between different probable states. This would be due to the quantum effects of entanglement, superposition and non locality.

I REPEAT, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RANDOM BRAIN ACTIVITY RECALLING SPECIFIC MEMORIES.

If you would take the time to actually read things and try to understand them you wouldn't keep posting these inane ramblings.

Penrose links the ability of the brain to choose between different probable states to space-time geometry at Planck scales and quantum gravity.

Here's a definition of randomness:

2. Mathematics & Statistics Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.

This is why Penrose ties this randomness to quantum effects. When the brain makes a choice it's tied to the protoconsciousness embedded in space time geometry at Planck scales.

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

Listen to this nonsense, you said:

So if they saw certain neurons firing, they could predict that they were watching the Simpsons. But they couldn't predict which neurons would fire based on the clip. So you are saying if they watched a certain clip different neurons would fire each time making it unpredictable or random. And so when different neurons fired they knew which clip but it didn't work the other way.

You take something that's relatively simple to understand and add your silly logic and then it sounds like a convoluted mess.

The Researches would map which neurons were firing when they recalled specific clips. So when a subject recalled a memory of a clip from the Simpson's, these specific set of neurons would fire and the researchers could predict which clip the subject recalled based on this mapping. If different neurons were firing then they were not recalling the clip from the Simpson's. Simple and straight forward research but I'm sure you will muck it up because you're trapped in your paradigm. Therefore we will get more rambling nonsense.

Finally we get this nonsense:

So if a person can "will" to walk to the store without the need for the "user" does that mean that "willing" is happening in the brain or is there another user to account for this? and walking to the store has nothing to do with free will.

Who said they could will to walk to the store without the need of the User? You were debating free will and you acted like you had no comprehension of what will means and you kept rambling about random brain activity.

I was simply saying a person can will themselves to walk to a specific store and it doesn't have to be free will. It could be determined by the User and we don't know if this Consciousness is governed by deterministic laws. This whole conversation occurred because you kept trying to debate free will when the debate isn't about free will. It's about recalling specific memories at WILL. You kept acting like you had no comprehension of the difference between talking about a persons will and free will. Free will is an entirely different debate.

So please, try to understand what you're reading before you reply with more nonsense.

reply to post by neoholographic


Yes, I said I agree with everything you said. It makes perfect sense. There is no reason to repeat the same thing repeatedly.

Penrose is talking about quantum effects because the randomness he's talking about is the ability of the brain to randomly choose between different probable states.

Yes, exactly. The ability of the brain to randomly choose between different problem states has nothing to do with remembering different problem states. Yes, please keep explaining it to me. I can't come up with this on my own. This is good stuff.

I REPEAT, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RANDOM BRAIN ACTIVITY RECALLING SPECIFIC MEMORIES

Of course it doesn't. It has to do with "the ability of the brain to randomly choose between different probable states". Memory has absolutely nothing to do with remembering which problem states the brain wills itself to randomly choose between things. It's a brilliant interpretation.

If you would take the time to actually read things and try to understand them you wouldn't keep posting these inane ramblings.

As you pointed out, I have a reading comprehension problem so it's helpful when you make things clearer so that I can understand them. Like I now understand that having a random memory is impossible but it's possible for the brain to "randomly choose between problem states" which has absolutely nothing to do with memory. It's perplexing to the casual reader but not to us.

You take something that's relatively simple to understand and add your silly logic and then it sounds like a convoluted mess.

Oh sorry, I thought i was just repeating what you said so that others could understand it.

Who said they could will to walk to the store without the need of the User?

I thought you did

A person can will to walk to the store

Got it.

but walking to the store can be determined by other factors like the User

Meaning that the user can will to the store, if he chooses to based on the "brains ability to randomly choose between different problem states" as stated above... BUT, walking to the store can be determined by OTHER factors like the user...

Did I screw that up too?

You were debating free will and you acted like you had no comprehension of what will means and you kept rambling about random brain activity.

I told you, the difference between free will and just plain will is confusing to me. Will is just like will without the freedom. Like when someone wills to walk to the store, it's not based on freedom to choose to do so, it's based on "the brains ability to choose between different problem states"

And remember

Nobody is debating free will. We're talking about will

I was simply saying a person can will themselves to walk to a specific store and it doesn't have to be free will. It could be determined by the User and we don't know if this Consciousness is governed by deterministic laws.

Ohhhhhhhh! I get it now. We are talking about deterministic will and not free will. And when we discuss deterministic laws, talk of free will has no place in the discussion. Shouldn't someone mention this to my philosophy professor?

This whole conversation occurred because you kept trying to debate free will when the debate isn't about free will. It's about recalling specific memories at WILL.

Silly me. Recalling memories at WILL has nothing to do with free will because its deterministic will.

You kept acting like you had no comprehension of the difference between talking about a persons will and free will. Free will is an entirely different debate.

No, it's not an act. It's hard for us lay persons to understand the difference.

Kashai
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

That is my real first name.

Oh, very good. I first thought of Don Juan Matus from Carlos Castaneda's books. I read those a number of years ago and thought it could of been from that. so I got caught up in reading about how Castaneda was a fraud and made up the whole thing and that Don Juan was a made up character, yada,yada..
Anyway, I'm glad there are real people who say real things.

reply to post by neoholographic

The Researches would map which neurons were firing when they recalled specific clips. So when a subject recalled a memory of a clip from the Simpson's, these specific set of neurons would fire and the researchers could predict which clip the subject recalled based on this mapping. If different neurons were firing then they were not recalling the clip from the Simpson's. Simple and straight forward research but I'm sure you will muck it up because you're trapped in your paradigm. Therefore we will get more rambling nonsense.

So you are saying the researchers couldn't predict which neurons would fire. They could predict which clip the subject would recall based on which neurons were firing. So if they knew which clip they were watching, they couldn't predict which neurons would fire. So you are saying it was free memory recall without free will but just plain old will. So it would it be a willed random recall of the clips? Ah, I give up. Damn this paradigm! I am so stuck in it.

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?

I...I, really can't answer this...the geometry of space-time...the embedded protoconsciousness. Can you break this down for me? I would be really interested in hearing about this.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


More nonsense. You said:

Yes, exactly. The ability of the brain to randomly choose between different problem states has nothing to do with remembering different problem states. Yes, please keep explaining it to me. I can't come up with this on my own. This is good stuff.

What are different problem states? You didn't even take the time to grasp this. I said probable states. What is this nonsense?

I don't even know what you're debating. Do you agree with Penrose? Do you agree that self collapse is connected to qualia or experience? What about microtubles in the brain as it relates to the Orch-Or model?

If you don't agree with Penrose what are you debating?

As I pointed out earlier, the Quantum Mind isn't the only theory in areas of consciousness. You have theories like Biocentrism or theories of consciousness that tie into extra-dimensions.

At this point, I have no clue as to what you're debating.

You talk about random activity in the brain that recalls specific memory, but what does this mean? What random activity are you talking about? What are problem states? You said:

The ability of the brain to randomly choose between different problem states has nothing to do with remembering different problem states.

What???????

You need to add a cipher with your post so they can be decoded.

What exactly are you debating now?

neoholographic
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

What are different problem states? You didn't even take the time to grasp this. I said probable states. What is this nonsense?

probable states and problem states are interchangeable in your context.

I don't even know what you're debating.

I'm not debating anything, I'm learning a whole new way of thinking.

Do you agree with Penrose? Do you agree that self collapse is connected to qualia or experience? What about microtubles in the brain as it relates to the Orch-Or model?

I don't know since your genius is so brilliant it's like talking to Einstein on acid.

If you don't agree with Penrose what are you debating?

I'm not debating, I'm learning about the difference between free will, will, random brain functions and that memory is not a brain function.

As I pointed out earlier, the Quantum Mind isn't the only theory in areas of consciousness. You have theories like Biocentrism or theories of consciousness that tie into extra-dimensions.

Yes, you are smart.

At this point, I have no clue as to what you're debating.

I'm not debating, I'm agreeing with you. You are teaching me about stuff I didn't know. Please teach me more.

You talk about random activity in the brain that recalls specific memory, but what does this mean? What random activity are you talking about? What are problem states? You said:

I agree with you. What don't you understand? There is no such thing as random memories. They are recalled at will but not because they are freely willed but because they are just willed.

Problem states was a typo. Damn auto complete but it makes no difference.

What???????

Huh????

You need to add a cipher with your post so they can be decoded.

Why? I just repeated what you said.

What exactly are you debating now?

Nothing. You have brilliantly made your points and I agree with everything you said. I don't know why you think I'm arguing with you. You say something and I repeat it with my own words. you are apparently arguing with yourself.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


LOL, this shows you can't even admit you don't know or understand so how can you ever understand? One of the first steps in learning something new is admitting you don't know. You can't learn something new while holding onto old paradigms that block you from learning something new. You said:

probable states and problem states are interchangeable in your context.

What in the world are problem states???? Problem states, whatever they are, have nothing to do with probable states. Do you even know how probable states relate to Quantum Mechanics and Penrose's Orchestrated Reduction?

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and looked up Problem States and they were talking about States who had the most problem with crime or poverty. You can't even admit that you didn't understand what I was saying. You have to make it up as you go. If you have a scientific study that relates problem states to probable states in the context of Quantum Mechanics, let's see it.

What are random memories?

I have heard of involuntary and voluntary memories but not random memories. There's no such thing as a random memory. Every memory is processed by specific neurons firing in the brain. So a memory may randomly pop into your head but that's an involuntary memory not random memories. There's specific brain activity that occurs when an involuntary memory pops into your head and this has nothing to do with random brain activity recalling specific memories. Here's more:

Involuntary memory, also known as involuntary explicit memory, involuntary conscious memory, involuntary aware memory, and most commonly, involuntary autobiographical memory, is a subcomponent of memory that occurs when cues encountered in everyday life evoke recollections of the past without conscious effort. Voluntary memory, its binary opposite, is characterized by a deliberate effort to recall the past.

First, notice that voluntary memory involves a DELIBERATE EFFORT TO RECALL THE PAST. What's the definition of will?

The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action:

Deliberate intention or wish

Secondly, involuntary memory recall involves specific activity in the brain. The brain even tries to block involuntary memory recall like a pop up ad blocker. This is what the machine is designed to do. When a memory or a pop up ad gets past the blocker, THE USER sees the pop up ad or the involuntary memory. Here's more:

The first study found that involuntary memory retrieval is mediated by the hippocampus, which is known to be associated with successful episodic memory retrieval. In addition, activity in areas such as the left inferior frontal gyrus, left superior temporal gyrus, left hippocampus, and right superior occipital cortex, have been implicated in involuntary memory when dealing with involuntary word recognition tasks. Areas implicated with executive control processes such as right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, and bilateral medial/lateral parietal cortex were more active during voluntary word recognition tasks.

The second study found that the medial temporal lobe, the posterior cingulate gyrus, and the precunueus, are activated during retrieval success with or without executive control seen within right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. This implies that involuntary memories are successfully retrieved using the same system as voluntary memory when retrieving perceptual information. Voluntary and involuntary recall were both associated with increased activations in the posterior cingulated gyrus, left precuneus, and right parahippocampal gyrus. In addition, right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, and left precuneus were more active during voluntary recall, while left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was more active during involuntary recall. It is suggested that the activation seen in left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex during involuntary memory recall reflects the attempt to prevent the recollected material from interfering with the semantic judgment task.

Involuntary Memory

Where's your random brain activity? Where's your random memories? Where's your problem states?

At the end of the day, you seem to just make it up as you go. It's like you're more concerned about responding to a post than trying to learn something new.

I will make the suggestion one more time but I know it will not mean anything. Try to take the time to learn and understand what your reading before you respond. It makes for a much better debate.

Yes, and the fact that humans are machines supports the notion of intelligent design.

Not to be confused with any religious use of the term.

And the mechanism of the design is DNA. David Wilcock reports interesting facts in his fine book The Source Field Investigations.

Good conversation on this thread, thanks.

It seems to me the universe is a human construct, something in our collective view of the world in which we live, but our understanding of the spiritual side of our existence is miserably incomplete.

Many americans are spiritually barren and not very imaginative. And completely ignorant of the spiritual and invisible things Wilcock wrote about in his book.