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.
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 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.
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?
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?
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.
You can't just say there must be this magical algorithm because it's the only way to support what I want to believe.
What algorithm? Where is this algorithm located?
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.
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?
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
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?
If I smash my TV, there's still a tv signal.
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.
still doesn't say there is no algorithm for replicating consciousness.
And why do we all think so differently if we're all running on the same signal?
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.
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!