Cybernetics tells us Conscious Energy must exist

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


What claim are you talking about?

You say prove it, prove what? Of course you can recall specific memories at will. There's scientific studies looking into the recall of memory, just Google it.

My point is, if you're trying to say prove that we can recall specific memories, it's just idiotic. Of course we can. People recall specific memories at will everyday.

This goes back to your problem not mine. You don't want to say we can recall specific memories at will because it doesn't fit your paradigm.

Everything you said in your post adds up to nothing because you can't admit that we can recall specific memories at will. If you can't accept that there's really no need in debating.

I'm not debating on whether we can recall specific memories. Most people with common sense know this is the case because we do it everyday. You have no answer on how the material brain can do these things so you play dumb or you really believe what you're saying and that's just silly.

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.

Psycho-Cybernetics is a classic self-help book, written by Maxwell Maltz in 1960 and published by the non-profit Psycho-Cybernetics Foundation

I don't consider self help books real good scientific literature.

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 you are saying there is a "user" controlling our bodies and brains and that this is a fact and that There is no other explaination and if you question this or believe otherwise its because you are stuck in a paradigm. But you are not stuck in a paradigm because its a fact. You require evidence for consciousness being part of the material brain but not for its existences outside the brain.

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

No it doesn't.

neoholographic
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

What claim are you talking about?

1. Consciousness has no need for a material brain.
2. That memories are not random but are due to something called the will.
3. That the brain stores memory like a computer and there is something called a user that retrieves them.

Those are claims as far as I can tell.

You say prove it, prove what? Of course you can recall specific memories at will. There's scientific studies looking into the recall of memory, just Google it.

Please. I posted some links about memory. Did you read them? Can you pick out the parts about will? Thanks.

My point is, if you're trying to say prove that we can recall specific memories, it's just idiotic. Of course we can. People recall specific memories at will everyday.

No they don't. People have random memories and need constant reminders and references to remember things. It has nothing to do with 'willing' as far as I can tell.

This goes back to your problem not mine. You don't want to say we can recall specific memories at will because it doesn't fit your paradigm.

No, it's pretty much your problem and your claim. I'm not really claiming anything.

Everything you said in your post adds up to nothing because you can't admit that we can recall specific memories at will. If you can't accept that there's really no need in debating.

You are kind of stuck on this will thing aren't you? I can't admit to anything until I know what you are talking about. Please explain how you know you retrieve a memory from will and not from some random brain activity. That's all.

I'm not debating on whether we can recall specific memories. Most people with common sense know this is the case because we do it everyday. You have no answer on how the material brain can do these things so you play dumb or you really believe what you're saying and that's just silly.

I freely admit that I don't know. That's not playing dumb. I am asking YOU how YOU know. You are making a claim, not me.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


I have to admit. I have been debating this issue for awhile and this is the 1st time I have debated anyone so trapped in their paradigm that they can't admit that we can recall specific memories at will.

So I want to be fair to materialist out there. Like I said you have to be playing dumb or you really believe what you're saying and that's even worse.

Here's a little exercise. At 12:40 recall a specific memory about your parents. Any memory you wish to recall.

Better yet, recall 2 or 3 specific memories back to back. A 6th grader could do this.

Again, this is just silly and like I said this is the 1st time I have debated someone that's so far gone they can't accept that we can recall specific memories.

The fact that you're trying to debate whether we can recall specific memories at will speaks volumes. So people know how powerful this simple line of reasoning is. Next time your debating these issues just ask how can the material brain recall specific memories at will.? How does the material brain know which memories you wish to recall? How does the material brain know the difference between these specific memories.

You probably will not get an outlandish answer like in Zeta's post but it's something the brain isn't capable of because it's a machine that processes information that the User interacts with.

reply to post by neoholographic

Here's a little exercise. At 12:40 recall a specific memory about your parents. Any memory you wish to recall.

Better yet, recall 2 or 3 specific memories back to back. A 6th grader could do this.

But you are telling me what to recall. "Something about my parents" that's what is known as a memory association. It has nothing to do with will. This is stuff I learned in 6th grade.

do you have another example of 'non willed memory recall' ?

Again, this is just silly and like I said this is the 1st time I have debated someone that's so far gone they can't accept that we can recall specific memories.

Where do I say you can't recall specific memories? I am just not so sure that memory recall is due to a "user willing" the memories. Lets be clear.

The fact that you're trying to debate whether we can recall specific memories at will speaks volumes. So people know how powerful this simple line of reasoning is. Next time your debating these issues just ask how can the material brain recall specific memories at will.? How does the material brain know which memories you wish to recall? How does the material brain know the difference between these specific memories.

It's not that powerful. It actually borders on nonsensical. Apparently saying "I don't know" is playing dumb as is Asking questions or asking definitions for complex terms.

"Consciousness, we all know what that is,duh. Free will, yeah we all know we got that. Free will is, you know, free will. You know its like TVs are like brains with electricity."

Yeah, I'm out matched here.

Please explain how you know you retrieve a memory from will and not from some random brain activity. That's all. You have nothing until you can answer that.

This is your claim. I'm not making the claim that memory is only random or cued. I don't know if there is a will or if its an illusion produced by the brain. Specifically, I am asking you how you know this to be the only true fact. There seems to be no evidence that there is this 'will' or a 'user'. Evidence that is required to show consciousness emerging from brains is not required for there to be consciousness existing without a brain. How is that?

You probably will not get an outlandish answer like in Zeta's post but it's something the brain isn't capable of because it's a machine that processes information that the User interacts with.

And there is yet another claim. "What claim?" That the brain isn't capable of retrieving memory on its own or distinguishing between memories. How do you know this?

Next time your debating these issues just ask how can the material brain recall specific memories at will

Yeah, the next time you are master debating someone, ask them how the brain is cable of doing something that it is not really known to do like recalling stuff "at will". And hope that they don't notice that. Because when you are a master debater, you have to set your questions up so that the outcome is implied in the question itself.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


This is just another obfuscating post. This illustrates my point so well though. People can't think past their paradigms. You can't admit something so obvious because you don't have an answer as to how it's possible for the material brain to recall specific memories at will. You said this:

Where do I say you can't recall specific memories? I am just not so sure that memory recall is due to a "user willing" the memories. Lets be clear.

So it's obvious you have been playing dumb. Of course we can recall specific memories. At first you were saying the we don't know the difference between different memories we just think we know. Who thinks we know the difference between different memories? The User?

Yes, we can recall specific memories at will and we do it all the time. You say we can recall specific memories, how does the brain know which specific memories you wish to recall? I just recalled a memory from the Army and then a memory playing high school football, how does the brain know I wish to recall these specific memories? How does the material brain know the difference between these specific memories?

We can show that there's activity in the brain during memory recall just like there's activity on my cable modem when I'm surfing the internet but you need a User to interact with the information the brain processes.

The brain just stores my memory from the Army or stores my memory from high school football, the User can recall these specific memories at will. I'll show you, in 5,4,3,2,1 I will recall a specific memory from boot camp in the Army. It's that simple.

When the brain is damaged, the User can't do things like recall a specific memory unless the damage is repaired. Just like you can't stop your car if the brake line is damaged so you get it repaired.

At the end of the day, it's the paradigm that consciousness is an emergent property of the material brain that's truly horrible. It puts awareness in a box that says this must be the case . If people began to think outside of this paradigm, we will learn more about consciousness in a year than we have over the last 50 years.

reply to post by neoholographic

The brain just stores my memory from the Army or stores my memory from high school football, the User can recall these specific memories at will. I'll show you, in 5,4,3,2,1 I will recall a specific memory from boot camp in the Army. It's that simple.

Hey, that was pretty good. Can you do it again?

OK so how do you know it was from 'will' and not by random brain activity? Of course you can't answer that question because you can't tell. Everyone knows that. Thanks for demonstrating that.

reply to post by neoholographic


So how does the brain produce random memories and then create the illusion that it does this at will? Cybernetics tells us this is because the brain is material capable creating illusions. If you turn off your TV, it stops working because there is no electricity. This means it doesn't have control of itself.

Here in 5,4,3,2,1...I just had 100 random memories and the delusion that they were due to free will.

I have nothing to back this fact up and will just avoid any questions I can't answer. I will just repeat the same thing over and even if it doesn't make any sense.

At the end of the day, it's the paradigm that consciousness exists outside the material brain that's truly horrible.

Are we on the same level of simpleton now?

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


You said:

OK so how do you know it was from 'will' and not by random brain activity? Of course you can't answer that question because you can't tell. Everyone knows that. Thanks for demonstrating that.

Give me the evidence that shows that random brain activity knows which specific memory I wish to recall. How does it work? Walk me through it with peer reviewed papers and experiments.

How is it even possible for random brain activity to know which memories I wish to recall? Does random brain activity tell random brain activity which specific memory I wish to recall? How does this random brain activity know the difference between these specific memories I wish to recall? How does the material brain get the random signal to the random activity that I want a specific memory from the Army? Give me the scientific evidence and the peer reviewed papers that walk us through how this is possible for the material brain?

What activates this random brain activity? Why does this random brain activity start up when I want it to start up? When I want a specific memory why is this random brain activity activated?

Where is the evidence that this brain activity is random and it's not a specific function that allows memory recall? Who said it was random brain activity? Where's the peer review papers and scientific studies that said this is random brain activity? The studies and experiments I have read don't say anything about random.

When a person recalls a specific memory a specific network of neurons begin to fire. What do you mean random activity?

Again, you prove my point with each post.

There's no reason to start with the paradigm that consciousness is an emergent property of the material brain. If people are really seeking the truth, they will look at other explanations equally because there's zero evidence that consciousness is confined to the material brain.

The problem is, many people are trapped by their paradigm and they can't think past it.

I would love if the same research dollars went to consciousness outside of the material brain as goes to consciousness as an emergent property of the material brain. I think consciousness emerging from the material brain is a silly idea with no evidence but I'm fine with them doing research as to how consciousness can emerge from the material brain if they're willing to put the same research dollars behind the Quantum Mind and Consciousness outside of the human brain.

Sadly, the people who hold the view that consciousness must emerge from the material brain are closed minded and trapped in the prison of this paradigm.

reply to post by neoholographic

How is it even possible for random brain activity to know which memories I wish to recall

It's not. You are correct. We live in a cause and effect universe.

Where's the peer review papers and scientific studies that said this is random brain activity? The studies and experiments I have read don't say anything about random.

Do they say anything about will? Post your sources. As long as you can make baseless claims, so can I.

When a person recalls a specific memory a specific network of neurons begin to fire. What do you mean random activity?

Its like a TV set that gets hit by stray interference patterns where it turns on and changes channels and looks like it has free will but it's random. Computers do this all the time.

Hold on... I'm thinking of a random number right now but experiencing it like i just willed it but its a delusion. Just like that

I don't how it works but...wait, I just had another random memory. Weird.

Tell us how you "imagine" the form your "user" takes. Why would it need a body? When it's not in a body, is it flying around at will? How can energy have will? If it has will, It must "know" things. Where does it store this knowledge?

Sadly, the people who hold the view that consciousness must emerge from the material brain are closed minded and trapped in the prison of this paradigm.

Who are these people? Not me, I'm not opposed to the idea but I'm not sure what you are presenting. Maybe collect your thoughts some more instead of avoiding a good discussion. It's sad because you do start good topics. It seems like you are more interested in being right.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


More obfuscating.

You said:

Do they say anything about will? Post your sources. As long as you can make baseless claims, so can I.

What baseless claim?

You said earlier we can recall specific memories after long winded post that said nothing, so what 's the baseless claim?

We can recall specific memories at will. You say it's not at will and I asked you to show me the evidence how this is possible for the material brain. How does the material brain know which specific memories you wish to recall? How does the material brain know the difference between these specific memories?

Again, you claimed we can recall specific memories and I agree. I say the User recalls these specific memories and you say this is due to random brain activity.

Where's the evidence that this brain activity is random? Every study points to specific neurons firing during during recall of memory which supports my claim.

I said the brain is a machine that carries out specific functions that the User activates during memory recall. Where's the evidence that this is due to random brain activity?

There's study after study where patients recall specific memories at will. One study had subjects watch video clips than recall specific things that occurred will watching those clips. These subjects recalled specific memories at will.

You say they recalled specific memories because of random brain activity. Where's the scientific evidence to support this nonsense?

Of course we can recall specific memories at will and this isn't in dispute. What's being debated is where does consciousness that recalls these specific memories at will come from. Does it emerge from the material brain or is consciousness outside of the material brain.

Saying we can recall specific memories at will is scientific because scientist do this with test subjects when studying memory recall.

When you say random activity of the brain, you're on fantasy island. How does random brain activity pertain to recall of specific memories? You don't have a clue as to what you're talking about but you're stuck in a paradigm so you spout any silly idea if you think it's support your paradigm. Here's a study:

The patients watched a series of 5- to 10-second film clips, some from popular television shows like “Seinfeld” and others depicting animals or landmarks like the Eiffel Tower. The researchers recorded the firing activity of about 100 neurons per person; the recorded neurons were concentrated in and around the hippocampus, a sliver of tissue deep in the brain known to be critical to forming memories.

In each person, the researchers identified single cells that became highly active during some videos and quiet during others. More than half the recorded cells hummed with activity in response to at least one film clip; many of them also responded weakly to others.

After briefly distracting the patients, the researchers then asked them to think about the clips for a minute and to report “what comes to mind.” The patients remembered almost all of the clips. And when they recalled a specific one — say, a clip of Homer Simpson — the same cells that had been active during the Homer clip reignited. In fact, the cells became active a second or two before people were conscious of the memory, which signaled to researchers the memory to come.

www.nytimes.com...

What does random brain activity have to do with recalling specific memories? The neurons firing were so specific, the researches could sometimes predict which clip they were about to recall.

So when you speak about random brain activity, you need to call Tattoo because you're heading into Fantasy Island territory.

The brain stores your experiences. It's a machine that processes information. When you recall these specific memories, the neurons that were activated when you had the experience began to fire. Who activates these neurons? How do these neurons know which specific memory you wish to recall? How do these neurons know the difference between these specific memories?

At the end of the day, both materialist and idealist say consciousness can recall these specific memories at will. The question is where does this consciousness come from. If you're going to say that consciousness is an emergent property of the material brain, then you need to show how the material brain can do things like recall specific memories at will. How does it know which specific memories you wish to recall.

If people weren't closed minded, I'm all for giving equal research dollars into conscious as an emergent property, the Quantum Mind and consciousness a a fundamental property of the universe.

The problem is people who believe consciousness is an emergent property of the material brain think this must be the case even though there's zero evidence to support. Just look at your post. You're so closed minded about your paradigm you can't even accept that it might not be the case.

reply to post by neoholographic


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.

Is that proof enough for ya?

reply to post by neoholographic


Yes, so my question is how do you tell the difference between a random memory and one that is called from will? If a researcher asks me to recall something or influences what I recall, that has nothing to do with will or randomness.

Are you saying random spontaneous memories don't exist? Or are you saying everything is causal? Wouldn't something that has free will not be tied to a causal relationship? If that's the case, free will would appear more or less random.

Your examples demonstrate casual relationships. And that's what we seem to have. I guess I'm wrong.

reply to post by neoholographic

When Neuroscientist look at the brain, they make huge assumptions. They will say because there's activity in a part of the brain when a specific activity occurs, this means this part of the brain is responsible for that specific activity. This is just silly.

So you went from neurologists making huge leaps and parts of the brain being responsible for specific activity as being silly

To

Specific neurons? And that supports your claim?

Every study points to specific neurons firing during during recall of memory which supports my claim.

I would stick to TVs

reply to post by neoholographic

What does random brain activity have to do with recalling specific memories? The neurons firing were so specific, the researches could sometimes predict which clip they were about to recall.

So let me get this straight. These experiments had people recalling memories "at will" and the researchers could actually predict which specific neurons would fire? Doesn't that sound deterministic to you? Interesting. Predictable willful recall?

So you are saying there is a predictable user inside people's brains.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


First, you said:

So let me get this straight. These experiments had people recalling memories "at will" and the researchers could actually predict which specific neurons would fire? Doesn't that sound deterministic to you? Interesting. Predictable willful recall?

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 a subject would watch clips of TV shows. The Researcher would say recall the clips that you saw. Certain clips were associated with a certain network of neurons firing. So a certain network of neurons would fire when they would recall a clip of the Simpson's. The Researches could predict when a subject was recalling a memory of the Simpson's clip based on which network of neurons were firing.

This supports what I'm saying. The brain shows activity when the User wants to recall a specific memory. It's like when I'm surfing the internet, 3 lights flash on my cable modem. When I'm not surfing the internet 1 light is flashing. So if I took my cable modem to another room I could tell when someone was searching the internet based on the activity on my cable modem.

We wouldn't say the cable modem is surfing the internet. The user is using the cable modem to search the internet just like the User uses the material brain to recall specific memories at will or go to a specific store.

You said:

So you went from neurologists making huge leaps and parts of the brain being responsible for specific activity as being silly

To

Specific neurons? And that supports your claim?

Yes, Researchers make the leap that because there's activity in specific regions when recall of memory occurs this must mean that the material brain is recalling this specific memory or that the material brain somehow tells the material brain which specific memory the material brain wishes to recall. It's just a silly assumption. Like I said, the brain processes information that the User interacts with. Activity in the brain doesn't tell you how the brain knows which specific memory the material brain wishes to recall. Again, it's just silly but it's a paradigm many people are imprisoned by.

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're falling into Ted Kaczynski territory with this nonsense.

Zeta... I've read your replys and I admit, I'm having a hard time following your logic..

Prove we recall memory's at will? Driving a car.. I choose or will to drive a car.. I use my memory to recall how..

If a specific incident occurred that triggered an emotional response.. If I want to relate that experience to another person.. I willfully recall as many details to properly articulate that experience to another..

Replying to this post.. Your willing yourself to recall any and all memory's of anything that could help you prove your point..

Are you saying we're just creatures of impulse and instinct? Reactionary? If that's so, then nothing separates us from animals..

I guess I'm confused here.. Do you have a link or book you could direct me to, that would help me relate?

Now I don't want you to will yourself to recall a specific memory here.. Sorry, being a smart a$$

HooHaa
Zeta... I've read your replys and I admit, I'm having a hard time following your logic..

That's fair.

Prove we recall memory's at will? Driving a car.. I choose or will to drive a car.. I use my memory to recall how..

If a specific incident occurred that triggered an emotional response.. If I want to relate that experience to another person.. I willfully recall as many details to properly articulate that experience to another..

Replying to this post.. Your willing yourself to recall any and all memory's of anything that could help you prove your point..

It sure seems like we would have "willful recall" but I'm just not sure we do. My point is that it's really a philosophical issue and not really a provable scientific one no matter how many TVs you turn on or off.

But is it more of an "impulse" to respond to these posts? am I driven to do so simply because I was breast fed for too long...or something?

Are you saying we're just creatures of impulse and instinct? Reactionary? If that's so, then nothing separates us from animals..

We certainly could be. Do animals have free will? I'm not opposed to being an animal.

I guess I'm confused here.. Do you have a link or book you could direct me to, that would help me relate?

no not really. I'm trying to understand the OPs point and where this "user" fits into cybernetics and neurology. I must admit, I'm pretty confused about the topic and what the point is. I really don't have a side about "emergent consciousness". It very well could be just all brain stuff or it could be we have some ghost "user".

I'm looking at this right now which seems like a good read to me so far
www.scaruffi.com...

Free will and randomness


Free will is often associated to randomness: a being has free will if it can perform "random" actions, as opposed to actions rigidly determined by the universal clockwork. In other words, free will can exist only if the laws of nature allow for some random solutions, solutions that can be arbitrarily chosen by our consciousness. If no randomness exists in nature, then every action (including our very conscious thoughts) is predetermined by a formula and free will cannot exist.

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.

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.

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?

reply to post by neoholographic


I'm not really following. You are saying there is a "user" that determines what to recall based on experiments where a researcher has them recall specific things. I don't really see where the user decides anything. So how does this "user" know what to decide? So this "conscious energy" is tied intimately to the brain because the brain has all the information. It would seem that this user is is rather useless without a working brain.