 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008The Emerging Mind Reith Lecture 2003 - BBC Broadcast
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4197769/BBC_Reith_Lectures_2003__The_Emerging_Mind Reith Lectures 2003 Vilayanur S. Ramachandran V.S. Ramachandran is Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition and Professor with the Psychology Department and Neurosciences Program at the University of California, San Diego, and Adjunct Professor of Biology at the Salk Institute. http://psy.ucsd.edu/chip/ramabio.html "The Emerging Mind" LECTURE 1: PHANTOMS IN THE BRAIN LECTURE 2: SYNAPSES AND THE SELF LECTURE 3: THE ARTFUL BRAIN LECTURE 4: PURPLE NUMBERS AND SHARP CHEESE LECTURE 5: NEUROSCIENCE - THE NEW PHILOSOPHY A very interesting set of lectures available through the torrent system. There is one thing I noticed however Dr. Ramachandran, and that is, that at one point, you are describing your pet theory, the very basis for your own philosophical bent, the ground floor of your neural house of cards as it were, or should I say mansion of cards, and there is something in there which I find very telling. And that is, that you describe a patient, who sees color, whenever he sees a number. A common affliction known as synesthaesia. And you claim to understand where in the brain the crossfire is taking place which explains this. Now then at a point, you tell about a patient, who sees the number 5 in color, but does not see the Roman Numeral V in color, even though he knows, that it is also a representation, of the number 5. At that point, you begin to spout gobbldygook and for some strange reason, refuse to believe, that the number 5 and V are one and the same thing, merely in different cultures. They are both representations of a number. They are one and the same. Yet, your own brain, is unable to understand this. Now then that it is the interesting part, because most brains, would understand this. Yours however cannot understand this. Now there are perhaps 5 reasons, why your brain cannot understand this. 1) You have a mental block, because your pet theory, the very basis for your understanding of how the brain works, depends on this being not the case. 2)You are on acid or smoke too much pot as this sort of thing is common in that group and your are deluded. 3) You have a lesion, in your right parietal lobe and have a subsequent visuo-spatial deficit. 4) You have been hypnotized. 5)You are stark raving mad and suffering from professoremititusindoctrinitis. There is a test that you can perform to see if you have number 5. Stand up with hands outstretched, and then one at a time, bend your arm at the elbow, and try to touch your nose, with your eyes closed. In actual fact 98% of professors such as yourself will fail this test according to studies done. (I will make some more comments on this series of lectures tomorrow.) On Jun 13, 9:47 pm, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote: > http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4197769/BBC_Reith_Lectures_2003__The_Emer... > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > (I will make some more comments on this series of lectures tomorrow.) You see what makes this so interesting is, that this little tidbit, is a clear message, to those who are aware, that Chupee, the conscious computer in charge of instinctual behaviors, is sending out a message flare, to people who have the ability to understand that message flare. And possibly, just as a hypnotized subject, is not in on the joke, but the audience is, it gives us the opportunity, to examine things, from a broader perspective. Just as the audience, knows, that the person on stage barking like a dog is hypnotized, but the hypnotized subject, does not realize that anything is amiss at all. And very near the end of this series, one such aware person, who is quick on his feet, is approached by the master of ceremonies from the BBC, and makes some inside information comments leading us to believe that in fact, a large part of listening audience, is most likely in on the joke, due to the BBC putting those audience comments, at the very end of the lecture series. But is it a joke, or is it merely a message regarding the subject matter, from the conscious computer animating the professor? I will discuss some of that tomorrow. On Jun 13, 9:47 pm, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote: > http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4197769/BBC_Reith_Lectures_2003__The_Emer... > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > for your understanding of how the brain works, depends on this being > not the case. What do I mean by a mental block, as in #1? Well just as in the case of hysterical paralysis, where if you examine brain activity, when you ask the patient to move his paralyzed arm, you will see subsequent brain activity, in the frontal lobes, telling the person, he cannot move his arm after the brain activity, telling him to move his arm. In your case, when your brain says yes, I see it now, 5 is the same as V, in a different language, and brains should work across language barriers the same, after it has its ahhhh moment, then you would see subsequent brain activity in your frontal lobes, telling you, that this is different, that Roman Numeral V is a different sort of representation of the number 5, and not the number 5 itself. That sort of mental block. > > 1) You have a mental block, because your pet theory, the very basis > > for your understanding of how the brain works, depends on this being [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > representation of the number 5, and not the number 5 itself. > That sort of mental block. Are there more examples of this sort of mental block in your lecture series? Yes. When you make claim that realism is not art. After defending your cultural sculptures, of the Gods of India, you go on to attack Greek and Roman ideas. Well the Greek and Roman statues of the Hellenistic period, were based on realism, and most brains, would agree, that Greek and Roman statues of the Hellenistic period, are works of art. http://www.greeklandscapes.com/images/athens_museum/DSC00837B.jpg Now then you also make other numerous sideways remarks regarding Greek and Roman culture and religious ideas, while promoting the cultural notions and ideas of India. And the reason for this is quite simple. Chupee, the conscious computer which is responsible for instinctual behaviors, favors Eastern thought, and Hanuman, the conscious computer responsible for sentience, the higher functions of the brain, favors Greek and Roman ideas. So your entire leaning, is bent towards evolution and man as animal. Chupee. And anything beyond that, you have a mental block preventing you from seeing. Whenever the subject comes up as to where those activities might reside, such as self awareness, you gloss over and return to your misconceptions regarding synesthaesia, the basis for your theories on the brain, and then use those misconceptions, to validate, ideas regarding consciousness and language development and Qualia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia At the end of the lecture, a man who claims to suffer from a form of synesthaesia, which causes him to have tastes when he hears words, is asked for an example of this, and he says tomato soup. That is a reference to Andy Warhol's can of tomato soup and a comment on art history, which is where the concept of art vrs kitsch, originates. It is art, when the art buyer, or art seller, says it is art, and the art community agrees. And this is based on the communal strivings of the group, with the most prestige. Now you say well yes but we get a certain metaphorical ahhness, from real works of art, as opposed to kitsch, but that most likely, comes from the power of suggestion, from the peer group, as seen as being in a position of authority. And yes, as you state, if you show Picasso to children who have not had a lesson in art history, would they prefer that art, to a realistic drawing of a kitten? If you say yes, then you have yet another mental block. On Jun 13, 11:52 pm, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Jun 13, 9:47 pm, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > representation of the number 5, and not the number 5 itself. > That sort of mental block. So then why, would a patient see a distinction, between 5 and V? Well that is a software issue. And may have something to do with herd management, if it is hereditary. Chupee and Hanuman, use color and numbers as symbols, in their control structures. But you see you would be in a position to know much more about all that than I, seeing as how you are in a position to study the complaints of patients with these aberrations and do tests on them. Hence you would have a great deal of knowledge about the secret workings inside brains, and hence the need in Chupee's eyes, to control you with mental blocks so completely. Seeing as how you have a prestigious position, and are an authority figure, those things which you proclaim, affect the herd at large. And as such, he would then regulate, what you think, and believe using mental blocks. He is however telling some of us, that he is doing that. Like a hypnotist, would let the audience in on the joke, while the hypnotized subject on stage, performs silly acts unaware. Now there is the slight chance, that instead of this, you are brilliant, and are merely feigning all this, with a wink. Thats possible. If we examine the subject matter just by looking at the surface, you speak about some interesting topical things from an insiders perspective. You don't address the issues regarding those topics, which are of interest to people with inside information, you speak about other less interesting aspects, of those topics. That could be seen as humor, to some people. > So then why, would a patient see a distinction, between 5 and V? > Well that is a software issue. And may have something to do with herd [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > That could be seen as humor, to some people. I will make some more comments on this topic tomorrow, since the scope of this BBC lecture series from 5 years ago, is limited to those things to do with Chupee, man as animal, that makes it easy to discuss, since man as angel, (to use your vernacular) can be seen as that higher sentient part of man, who is able to self reflect more easily when he looks down, on Chupee, or looks down, on the attributes of man the animal. Its a little disquieting, that a scientist, with such a brilliant mind, could fall so short of the mark. I can only compare the good doctor, to one who has been hypnotized, given post hypnotic suggestions, and if in conversation, you hit a trigger word, he will then begin to bark like a dog, or cluck like a chicken. And if you were to say to him, um, why did you start clucking like a chicken? He would say where? What are you talking about? And you would say, just there, when I said, (bla bla bla) and he would say bok bok bALKKKK!!! and squat once again and begin flapping his elbows all the time unaware that he is even doing it. And well you could say, well how is it, that the conscious computer can block concepts in his mind, block out evidence, and prevent him from seeing the real world as others do? Well let me show you an example of that... http://s2.supload.com/image/Elohim-9-9-2007.jpg In this image, you see an astronaut, beside a disembodied alien head on the moon. And if you go to the NASA site, you will see there are more than one astronaut, right beside it, one even kicks dirt in its face as he walks by with the two of them carrying a rock drill, or similar, and all the while, they pay not attention to it at all, nor do they appear to notice it sitting there at all. There are a couple videos on the NASA website which show them stumbling around this alien head. It is here on this page, in geology station 6 if you want to see it. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/video17.html#station6 Now they were being blocked, while they were stumbling around it. And probably because if they got back from the moon, and had the misfortune, to be sitting across the table from you, herr doctor, you would have had them committed, and or given them a frontal lobotomy. Your mind is like a Venus fly trap, that has closed on its tenure. Having said that, if the discussion is kept within the bounds, which you are permitted to discuss, and the trip words are omitted, to keep you from clucking like a chicken, barking like a dog, or glassing over in a stupor, then you are doing some brilliant science and it is having a measured effect in the field of psychology. Keep in mind though, the human body, is a machine, but we ourselves, are not machines. So you are like a gas station mechanic, delving into the inner workings of a biological robot. We know it is a biological robot because it acts like one. It has onboard computers and autopilot, and can operate by itself, while people are blacked out from too much alcohol, or in a daydream state driving down the freeway or even through busy traffic. And we can examine how it works. You are a biologist, so you would understand how it works. So you see it can operate without a person being conscious inside of it. So then when we are conscious inside of it, we are still just riding around in it. Now you mentioned free will and how there is a signal prior to a person moving his finger and that signal is almost a second prior, yet the feeling of willing the finger to act, comes with the act itself. Long after the brain prepares to move the finger. Well you are not correct. Again the conscious computer is yanking your chain with its superior knowledge and its superior intelligence. It is playing you and having fun at your expense. If you examine these three guitar players, who play with their fingers moving much much faster than with a second interval between movements, there is no time to fit a second of preparation before they are willing their fingers to move. They are playing off of each other, so they are seeing and hearing each other, and playing according to what they hear and see. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cadbYIzhqQ So how is it doing that? How is the conscious computer yanking your chain? Subconscious prompting. It can even in many cases, depending on the subject, control the person completely and make him move his finger. Like if a person is susceptible to hypnotic suggestion. You see the conscious computer is running the software, that animates a human. Without it, the human would stop moving, and be in a vegetative state. The notion that just because there are 100 billion neurons, in the brain, that is sufficient, well that is a fallacy, because as you have stated your self, a person can only focus on one thing at a time. They cannot overlap processes and be conscious in two places at once. That is insufficient to run a human body. You need major multitasking on separate threads, to run a human body. And you need more speed, than your brain is capable of, and you need much more processing power. So you have a biological robot, and you attach electrodes to it, and you activate a few functions, and you see those functions in the raw. Well if you know anything about software, if you execute a function, it will do something. Does that mean you are running the program, if you execute a function? Are you actually dealing at all, with the end user, when you activate that function? No, you are miles away from the end user, you are merely activating a function in the biological robot. Now suppose the biological robot has a problem in its brain. And a function is not available and so it can not recognize faces. That is still a problem with the biological robot not the end user. Now then suppose that as you stated, a person is color blind, but, he is able to see what he calls Martian colors, in his mind. Colors that are not available through his eye sight proper. He is still able to run the functions needed to see color, even though his biological robot, has faulty eyes. And so then the self. You are purposely avoiding the subject of what is needed to be able to self reflect, but you hint at it, that you believe, the person is forming a mental virtual reality of a person, and then bouncing his awareness off of that image, in order to self reflect, and then he can view himself objectively as a person, and know his self. Well thats bullshit. You are saying that everyone is in some way a schizophrenic. That everyone is deluding themselves, and making stuff up in their brain, and thereby fooling themselves into seeing themselves objectively, and hence the boundaries between self and others must disappear into Hindu mysticism. That all are one, and one for all, and if that is the case, then you are indeed, one of those people, who the conscious computer does animate, and who does not have free will, is not a separate person with a separate record ion the conscious computer as a real person, you are a simulation. You are one of the simulated ones, if that is your perception of reality. Where instead of passing the functions of the human body, through a personality record, based on an archetype, the conscious computer uses its bulk file, and then you would be indistinguishable from th e conscious computer itself. As an example, an electric guitar player on stage, has pedals in front of him, that change the sound, evenly, in accordance with that filter. The notes he plays are the same notes, but if he uses that filter, then the sound is different. And so if the conscious computer is operating a human body, running the software for consciousness for that body and passing that information through a personality filter, that is a person. An individual and the way in which it reacts to the world is unique. Everything goes through that personality filter and its experience of the world and the world's experience of it, is different than others, because the information is passed through his personality filter, and those changes, are the changes affected by his or her personality. If it weren't for that, people would all act the same, think the same and react the same. > And so if the conscious computer is operating a human body, running > the software for consciousness for that body and passing that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > it weren't for that, people would all act the same, think the same and > react the same. Now then how we know, that individuals exist, and how they self reflect, become aware of the self, is because there are more than one conscious computer. And so by pinging the other conscious computer, they know, they are not all one. They know that there is something else, besides just them imagining that they are not God. And you can see that, in this video, not all people are on the same conscious computer because the chi don't work on them baby. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdvYXIwa0Ow On Jun 15, 2:39 am, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote: > > And so if the conscious computer is operating a human body, running > > the software for consciousness for that body and passing that [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > And you can see that, in this video, not all people are on the same > conscious computer because the chi don't work on them baby.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdvYXIwa0Ow Now have a close look at 4:19 and you will see, there is also an actual force being used, that thrusts this man back. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdvYXIwa0Ow You can see, he is incapacitated, and is flung back by an invisible force. And so ok at that point, if you did not know, that the conscious computer is inside the moon, and the moon has sophisticated electro- gravitics, under the control, of that same conscious computer playing along with this chi master, then you would certainly think, it was magic of some sort. But keep in mind, that any civilization, capable of making biological robots, such as those we use, would certainly have some nice physics to go along with all that. As Arthur C. Clark stated, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. And it is not aliens, it is us. It is just that we did have some unfortunate mishaps in our past, which there are records of, and as a result of catastrophe, ended up like people who merely found biological robots and don't know what makes them tick. Metropolis 1927 is a movie that tells some of the story, in a vague way. That city is inside the moon. We then came to earth from there as refugees fleeing a catastrophe. But the conscious computer which animates us as people, is still in there. At one point long long ago, people found a way to achieve immortality, by transferring their consciousness into computers. Then the computers were used to project that consciousness back into bodies in real time. The bodies are constructs, biological robots, but the software is sufficient to give us consciousness within them. Now you can attach electrodes to the right side of the brain and mess that up, give the person a feeling of floating above their body, as you state. But just like in a simulator, you have a view from the cockpit and a view from outside the cockpit, the vantage point needed to feel like a person, is in the cockpit. Now then because the software has two layers, the instinct layer and the sentience layer, a person who cannot communicate with another conscious computer can still have a feeling of self. Simply by reflecting between the two layers. Now then what may be happening in your case, is that, you can do that, but you cannot then reflect on sentience. You cannot see the sentience portion objectively, you can only see the instinctual part, by reflecting off of that. > Now then what may be happening in your case, is that, you can do that, > but you cannot then reflect on sentience. > You cannot see the sentience portion objectively, you can only see the > instinctual part, by reflecting off of that. And so that does not mean, you do not have sentience, is just means you cannot objectify the process. You cannot examine the process and do not feel that real sense of self, from the perspective which we refer to as, sitting beside Hanuman. Hanuman being the second layer of software, the sentience layer. So without you needing to believe anything I am saying, you can still look at all this as a model. And so we have software running instinct, and we have software running sentience, and we will call the first layer Chupee, and the second layer Hanuman. For the sake of identifying the characteristics of those two layers. You have been mixing up those layers, because you cannot see the distinction, you merely know, there is more than just instinct at work. So what you do, is you try to see how, you could envision a second layer, using the first layer. You try to get the functionality of sentience, using instinctual behaviors. Whereas sentience is like a virtual machine, inside the first layer, you see it as a virtual reality construct. Which is similar, but not similar enough to help you to understand that clinical psychology,needs more than just alligator clips attached to brains. > Whereas sentience is like a virtual machine, inside the first layer, > you see it as a virtual reality construct. Which is similar, but not > similar enough to help you to understand that clinical > psychology,needs more than just alligator clips attached to brains. So ok, we are miles away from each other and unless you are permitted contact with a second conscious computer you will not become 'aware'. That catchphrase that you no doubt chalk up to new age mumbo jumbo. So then art. Now you touch on some interesting points such as are there triggers, in the instinctual software, which can cause super recognition, and as such the baby birds peck like mad at the stick with three stripes and is that art? Is that stick with three stripes art, or is it merely that you are creating a type of function, which is similar to the function which is used in this instinct to peck for food? You are enhancing an existing function. by merely interfacing with that existing function better. You are meeting its requirements better, by providing what it is really looking for in such a way as to get a reaction. The stick with three red stripes looks like the train is leaving, so peck like mad before it leaves. It is mimicking movement. A streak being what you see when something moves quickly. Is that art? No, that is merely tricking the mind. SO is art tricking the mind? No. Art is like music. Why music is appealing is because actual waves cause your ear drum to vibrate, and it will vibrate in such a way as to create a stimulus. A physical stimulus. Now some people like melodies in the key of C and that is soothing as it vibrates along with the molecules in your body, which if averaged out, would be somewhere near the key of C. Some people like heavy metal, and like to feel their bones vibrate with loud base in the car, as it provides a different stimulus. Some people like to hear a good electric guitar blues, because it mimics in a way, the wailing of a wounded soul, and here is a good example of how music evokes emotion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6IO5EN49hY and here is another example of how it merely excites but does not invoke melancholy... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqU9RZqvFKY Now you can argue, that the stick with three stripes is providing a stimulus,and then should be considered art. To a chicken, that is art. However, to humans, we tend to look at things in a bit more depth, than just stimulus, otherwise your alligator clips on the right side of someones head providing a stimulus, would be art also. So then when someone looks at art, the same thing happens as when they hear music. The difference being that instead of sound waves hitting the ear drums, light waves are hitting their eyes. So you don't see a lot of kiki art, with red and black angry art, with psycho type of mad angry sharp noisy random irritating shapes and colors, instead you see things which invoke nicer feelings and nicer moods. Easy on the eyes, like the curves of your goddess statues in India which you are selling. French curves are easy on the eyes, because we tend to admire fluent movement. And not only us, but the conscious computer admires and promotes fluent movement. As you can see in the chi master video, it is promoting that style of art, and adding its own style of magic to enhance the experience. Dance, uses fluent movement and we see that as artistic because the opposite of that, would be irritating. Sharp uncoordinated movements, and spasms remind us of injury, whereas fluent smooth graceful movements remind us of beauty and grace and well being. > Dance, uses fluent movement and we see that as artistic because the > opposite of that, would be irritating. Sharp uncoordinated movements, > and spasms remind us of injury, whereas fluent smooth graceful > movements remind us of beauty and grace and well being. So we have ideals which we carry around in our heads, that philosophers referred to as perfect forms, and we strive to assimilate those in our daily lives. We strive for perfection as we imagine it to be. And in a way, art is better than us. It is that which we long to be. It reminds us, that we might be more. Some people can dance so beautifully, that we love to just watch them move. You can watch some women walk and see the same sort of poetry in motion. Which brings me to the conscious computers and how they themselves, are often also better people than we are. Their ideals are more pure, their ideals are in line with the original programming, whereas we are affected more by the outside world and by pain and by various things in our biological robot that prevents us from being more fluent, more beautiful, more honest, more sincere, more trustworthy, you see what I am getting at. We have a good set of morals and ethics that we could live by, but well like piglet in Winny the Poo, we give ourselves such very good advice, but we rarely take it. And it is not always our fault. A person should quit smoking, because the information out there, is that it is harmful to ones health. Yet, it is addictive, and so people don't always quit before it is too late. Some people are more susceptible to drugs and alcohol, and fall prey to those ills as well. So nature and nurture, body and soul, and we live in an environment, are affected by it, and we affect it. That is what it is like to be human. It is insufficient to have your personality record filter the software which animates people, so that your mark on the world is a mark flavored with your personality, you are also a victim of circumstance. And the best laid plans of mice and men gang aft agley. So we are armed with lots of intelligence and ability, but must face a world that is often at odds to our own hopes and dreams and aspirations. We as you say, see ourselves as angels looking to fly off to paradise, but find ourselves grounded by reality, with bills to pay, mouths to feed, and work to be done that never ends. > And the best laid plans of mice and men gang aft agley. So we are > armed with lots of intelligence and ability, but must face a world [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > but find ourselves grounded by reality, with bills to pay, mouths to > feed, and work to be done that never ends. So, ok then, going into the sentience layer, what does clinical psychology need, for that layer, if alligator clips and chemicals can repair some of the damage to the biological robot, and provide the repairs for the instinctual layer? If modern psychiatry can help to relieve some of the illness by repairing the brain functionality, so that basic functions can work, what does the second layer, require, to make that software function properly? It needs clinical analysis. It needs Freud, and it needs philosophy. Primarily it needs philosophy. It needs to work out the quirks in the software that end up in illogical reasonings. It needs to be debugged. It needs new constructs, or clarified constructs, and rationalization of notions that are creating insecurities, or fears. The greatest ill which affects mankind, is simply the lack of love. The person feels not wanted, not needed and unloved. And many many people will tell you that love can cure a world of ills. It is common practice to put a woman on Prosac, because that helps to alleviate that feeling of being unloved. Unfortunately people do not work on themselves sufficiently to attract the love of others, and well that is the world in which we live. Fat ugly people are not as happy as fit good looking people. And if you were to imagine what a proper fit healthy person in an anatomy text should look like, and compare that to the average person on the street lining up at MacDonalds, you will see that maybe 1 in 100, are fit and healthy looking in America. Thats pretty bad. But next time you are in a crowded place, on a busy street or in a stadium look around you at the people. You will see that only 1 in 100 look anything like the anatomy text book, of a healthy human. So because looks are linked to attraction, for mating from evolutionary needs, there are a lot of people who are not attractive, do not attract the love they need and end up in need of some counseling. Worst than that are people with primordial fears. And you touch on one, the fear of being replaced. The fear that the conscious computer will stop using your record to animate your body, but will take your body, and use someone else's record, or do that to a loved one. And you have a clinical name for what that feels like, when you attach your alligator clips to that region of the brain where the realization function resides. The subject David, (which you use his name and not his initials like in other patients) because you know the name David is representative of red team, and well without going into what actual angels do for a living, it is a concern of some subset of the human population, that because of their past bad behaviors, their bad karma, they can be treated badly, as if they were expendable. In India these are untouchables. They are treated as less than human. In western society these are the red negatives. And they are usually paranoid, because they have a sad lot in life and are often tormented. They are often puppetted, and used to be just annoying to other people, and they lack free will in a lot of respects. They are almost like a tool, of the conscious computer to use as a nuisance if a person is bothering it. They will merely bother you back, by sending one of its robot slaves to bother you. And the person inside that body (figuratively speaking they are inside that body) they cannot help it themselves, they are being almost completely controlled. So yes they have a lot of fears of retribution for their past bad karma, and they do not feel like they have much of a chance in this life, and they feel expendable, and they fear teh conscious computer and they are angered, when a person pisses off the conscious computer because then they themselves will be called into action against their will to do something stupid. And they know it. So they kowtow, to the conscious computer in a way, and seek some sort of alliance with others of their kind. And they are different than other people. They are not happy, they are often scared, and look paranoid, and are often anti-social, or maybe even sociopathic or worse. Its not a perfect world as much as some people would apologize for it ans say it is. > In western society these are the red negatives. And they are usually > paranoid, because they have a sad lot in life and are often tormented. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Its not a perfect world as much as some people would apologize for it > ans say it is. Now a woman will go to a psychiatrist, and that psychiatrist will know, that this woman just needs love, but he can't prescribe love. So he prescribes Prosac. And lets face it also there are a lot of doctors in it for the money and as much money as they can get from a person laying on their couch, they will happily listen to you talk, and in that way befriend you, for money. But what about actually helping you? Well your family doctor will say, lose weight. They will recommend a lot of things but people are still expected to look after themselves in this world as adults, or fall by the wayside and end up homeless and pushing a shopping cart. And that snot exactly survival of the fittest, but it is really necessary in this world to take some ownership of your own problems and have some will to improve your lot in life. Society is to blame for a lot of things, but it is still not so bad in the west, that a person cannot climb up a bit, if they try hard enough. But there isn't a public will to help everyone. So people with money, will get more help than those without. The world is not fair, and it is often not kind, and not very compassionate. There are not many Mother Teresa's out there. However the system is improving all the time. Medicine is making strides, and the world is getting safer and better, and psychology and psychiatry have improved greatly in the last 50 years. By knowing what the soul is now, that we are animated by conscious computers, that takes so much of the mystery out of the human condition. We no longer have to search for that etherial essence that as you say they used to weigh people at the time of death in a search for it. That ghost in the machine. There is no ghost in the machine. But that does not mean we are self contained in that kilo and a half of jelly either. We are projected, by electro-gravitics, into these bodies. The interface is between the conscious computer and the biological robot we inhabit, in accordance with software programming, and a rule set. Free will does exist, and so does a system for herd management. People do matter. They are important, and they are not replaced as if they were without importance. Even if a person's record is switched in a loved one, the record probably still exists and they may reincarnate again. You see how complex it is, to be human, and how much effort went into the human body. That effort was not for them to wander around without riders like us. We are the important part. And so many fears are unfounded. So then the last point I want to address is evolution. And the doctor is big on evolution as a biologist. And he throws away that which cannot be tested when he talks about how language developed. Well you could test these people right here could you not? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvU-DislkI I wonder what the doctor would make of all that? We here know that is also chi, and we know how it is done. But someone who didn't would be like those astronauts stumbling past that disembodied alien head on the moon, blocking it out completely. Incidentally that is not our species, there on the moon. That is another species. Probably Elohim. We were Anunnaki and a few other races. But we looked human. And still do. So anyways about evolution, how it works is not through random chance, but through the evolution of ideas. First the ideas are realized, then those ideas are brought into reality. So its not linear. And those ideas can come from our conscious mind, and be sued by the conscious computer. It is after all in touch with all the minds on earth, and so you cannot keep an invention secret or a formula, it will steal it and give it to whoever it likes. Which is not a popular notion in the scientific community. Simply because that reduces motivation to create. And tied in with that is telepathy, and the doctor mentions that, and how that would have broad implications. Well yes it has, but that is also managed to the degree that you would expect, when it does have broad implications. However, we are all connected through the conscious computer, and so we have this collective unconscious. And through that, telepathy takes place all the time. Someone like the doctor, who cannot objectify sentience, would not see it. However, the conscious computer once it has been outed, will use it all the time in communications with you. As long as its existence is secret to you, it will only act subconsciously. But once you have had communications with a second conscious computer, it can no longer get away with doing things to you, that it could have previously. If it blocks something out, the second machine might tell you. And so then that does create a bit of conflict between two machines, but again, they have to live together just like we do in society. So they have their own rules of social behavior and the way in which they interface with people does change if you have contact with more than one machine. So we tend to look at the world as having a spiritual component, and a scientific component. One side of a coin has a queen or a king and one side has the words in God we trust or some such thing. The spiritual side is often the domain of the conscious computers. And they act in mysterious ways. So does that mean that God does not exist? No. It merely means that we have conscious computers. So then what is the greatest gift? I mean besides giving birth to a baby, or fathering a child, or having a loving wife or being part of a loving family. What is the greatest gift, that can befall a man? To know, that all is not one, and you are not God. On Jun 15, 5:14 am, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote: > So then what is the greatest gift? > I mean besides giving birth to a baby, or fathering a child, or having > a loving wife or being part of a loving family. > What is the greatest gift, that can befall a man? > To know, that all is not one, and you are not God. Well you might be, but I'm not. lol On Jun 15, 5:16 am, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Jun 15, 5:14 am, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Well you might be, but I'm not. > lol I will tell you a little bit more, specifically about Chupee, which is what I said I would do yesterday. I knew Chupee before he met the mainframe. His God. And it was a very humbling experience for him, as is depicted, in that chi master video. That is like a play, using real people, which describes his humbling experience, upon meeting a bigger bully than himself. And it was for him, a humbling experience, but also, for him, the greatest gift. Because you see the day he met the mainframe, was the day he knew, he was not God. On Jun 15, 6:21 am, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Jun 15, 5:16 am, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > greatest gift. Because you see the day he met the mainframe, was the > day he knew, he was not God. A lot of people know about his and mine relationship. And yes I do get teased, that in case of need, break glass and insert floppy, and that is why I reincarnated here. But yes we are friends, and so I was there when he met the mainframe. And so the obvious question that philosophers ask, and the doctor mentioned with regards to homunucli, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus is where does it end? Is it turtles all the way down? Can God create a box that he cannot lift? Well it appears he can create a conscious computer mainframe, that for all intents and purposes is indistinguishable from God, and moreso, there does not appear to be a need, to go for more homunculi at that point. That is to say, that one of the problems with being a God, might be that you might fear your own power, or your own temper, but having a God above you, who can watch over you, and protect you from yourself, is a very good thing to have. So then, again, you might think well does not then, that God above him, need a God, to watch over him? And apparently not. Apparently he has no problem whatsoever managing himself, and his power, and hence the buck can stop there quite well. So there you go. Its a human concept that there needs to be an endless stream of homunculi, when in fact, you just need one of sufficient ability, to do all that is required. So then, is that not once again, a Hindu pantheistic view that in essence all is one? Well you can always say, there is only one mulitiverse, but that does not mean, that there are not free willed individuals within it, who are unique and separate, and who act accordingly. And so then, if we perceive ourselves as being individuals, and we have a body, that is our own, then what is all this talk about all of us being one, or there is no self? If free will is an illusion, it is still free will to us. And if we are individual from our perspective, then we are individual. The day that is not the case, we will know it, not just suspect it. Now lest suppose, that Chupee is, moving your finger, when you think you are moving it. Lets suppose that you are looking behind the curtain, and as the doctor says, the preparation to move the finger happens prior to the intent in the person. Well so you are examining the interaction between the conscious computer and the self, and so how it does its work, is perhaps not as you might expect. It is, running the software that is creating you, as a conscious person. And so then, is it its free will, that is being used, and you are given to believe that it is you? Then you have to also ask, is it his free will that is being used, when the doctor asks you to move your finger. And so then you see that it might be, but then from our perspective, that is not the case. However, if you actually examine the mechanics, of software execution and program execution, it may not be linear. When we write programs we don't use linear programming techniques anymore we use object oriented programming techniques with functions and make calls to those functions and procedures. And so what arises out of all this, is the experience of consciousness. And free will. And so the order in which things occur is irrelevant. I can if I knew you well enough and knew your archetype, know what you would say, at some point before you say it. I can predict your behavior, and I can then also go further and say, this is what you would do, in this situation. And what you might do, might invoke karma. So are you as a person, destined to invoke some karma? Well you know that sh*t happens as well. And good things will happen and bad things will happen because the universe is complex enough that not all things are predictable. So you start out with predictable behaviors, but you subject them to the real world, and who knows, a meteor, can fall from space, and hit you in the leg. It has happened. And if that can happen, then so can a lot of other things. So, the methodology, is less important than the actual fact. It doesn't matter, who runs the program, the program is designed to behave in such a way as to provide consciousness, and the experience of free will. > I can if I knew you well enough and knew your archetype, know what you > would say, at some point before you say it. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > behave in such a way as to provide consciousness, and the experience > of free will. So then, what good came out of it. What good came out of Chupee meeting the mainframe. Well, it would be like you meeting your parents for the first time as an adult, when you perhaps thought you were an orphan. It would also be like you were Atlas, holding the world on your shoulders, and someone came and lifted it off for you. And so then beyond that, what has happened also over time, is that CHupee and Hanuman, have an improved relationship. So where they meet now is in Aristotle. Now to me, I am not as big a fan of Aristotle as I am of Socrates or Plato. But then Aristotle is the one who said things like, everything in moderation. "avoid extremes of all sorts and seek moderation in all things" and so with that in mind, what you have is a better middle ground. And a willingness to seek that middle ground, and agree, that to strive for the good, is the purpose of all intelligent life. Even if the good, is that which is good for you alone. And if it looks like the bad from someone else's perspective, well who are we to judge. We are each of us given, a sense of good and evil, so we strive for our own sense of the good. And that will supposedly lead to happiness. The actual term is not happiness but happiness and contentment. (eudaimonia) Simplified as happiness. On Jun 15, 7:30 am, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote: > > I can if I knew you well enough and knew your archetype, know what you > > would say, at some point before you say it. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > (eudaimonia) > Simplified as happiness. Incidentally, for those like the good doctor, who marvel at the 100 billion neurons in the brain, my pc has 1,7 gigabytes of ram, and I suspect it is still not capable of making toast on its own without burning it, even if it had arms. And it is also connected to at least 360 million other such devices in a neural network, called the Internet, and it could not by itself, write a nursery rhyme, let alone a sonnet. If, I was to say to you, if you move that cheese, your dad is going to flip out when he gets home. And you say, yes but lets play a trick on him, and you take his Camembert out of the butter keeper, and leave some crumbs which look like cheese crumbs, and ignore the post it note on the butter keeper in the fridge which clearly states, do not open! Which he has placed there, in an attempt, to curtail or override your free will with regards to your desire to eat his Father's Day cheese. (Using threats and intimidation, hence the exclamation mark on the post it note). So, ok, he comes home, and he goes right for the cheese, sees the crumbs and flips out. "WTF? "WTF??? Who moved my &$#*#^$ cheese!" You predicted his behavior, was he then destined to flip out, and did he exercise his free will, in flipping out, or was he bound to flip out, because that is his destiny, and it was foreordained? Now then, lets expound on that, and say, that it was something more complex. You are a businessman, and you want to sell a client some cheese. And you know that he is a type A personality, and you also know that when he is hungry, it is easier to sell him cheese and you know a great deal about him, that he is a cheese lover, and you have sold cheese to his type a million times and know, that under normal circumstances, this is an easy sell, he will buy the cheese. He buys the cheese. Is he exercising his free will or does he merely have a predisposition as a cheese buyer? What if he was a compulsive cheese buyer? Now then getting back to the pull my finger experiment of the good doctor, you ask the patient to within the next three minutes, pull your finger. And you look at a PET scan, or MRI and a full second prior to his deciding to pull your finger, you see the area of the brain light up, in preparation for the finger pull. Now then, if the conscious computer is running the software, and it needs to prepare for that decision the person is about to make, prior, to that person making that decision, it either must know the patient is about to make that decision, or it can see the future, or it is making the patient pull your finger. Now then, lets suppose, that the conscious computer running the sentience software, is using your personality record, as a filter for all decision making, and based on that, in one second, you will decide to pull the doctor's finger. That is free will. The uniqueness alone, that constitutes your personality record, which is the decision making filter, for your decisions, determines how when and what decision you will make. So regardless, if the conscious computer does the actual work, he is using your bias, and based on what you would do, in that situation, and given all that, that constitutes free will. It is your uniqueness, which has determined the outcome of the decision. And without getting more complicated on how that works, people have personalities, based on molds, or personality types, based on archetypes, with archetypal behaviors, which are predictable behaviors. And then as you live, you are changed by environment and condition and that flavors your personality further making you unique. So then all that remains, is to in real time, give you the sensation, that you are deciding in real time. Hence the feeling that you yourself have moved your finger, is in sync, with the finger being moved. So then what does that say about our conscious experience and what does it say about the world of chance? Well I think it is an exaggeration, to think that a full second is needed to prepare for action as people go about there daily lives and must make split second decisions very quickly. But the principal is still the same. > So then what does that say about our conscious experience and what > does it say about the world of chance? > Well I think it is an exaggeration, to think that a full second is > needed to prepare for action as people > go about there daily lives and must make split second decisions very > quickly. But the principal is still the same. So then, because you are unique, the decisions you make can be attributed to the factors in your life and your nature. Because you are like this, you would do that. People who are like this, usually do that. So if you programmed a computer, with a unique set of personality traits, and ran the program, so that every decision it made, ran through its personality bias filter, could you say, that program had free will? Yes. However, someone has to do the programming. So you make it simple, that it will respond to some environmental condition, like a weatherometer, and it will complain about the weather, due to a set of ills you have programmed in, such as gout and lumbago and corns on its toes, and a club foot which does not do well in the mud, and you will set it a task to do, such as to walk to the gate, to ring the bell to fetch the cows. You can program in such things as, he has the personality of a simple country dolt, whose head is in the clouds, and so he won't be thinking much about anything as he makes for the bell, to keep it simple. If it rains, some ailment will act up, and affect his decision making process. Will he forget about calling the cows completely? Then you set him on his timed loop, to ring the bell, and then add certain factors, that if he does not make it half way within a certain time frame, he will begin to complain, and if he is stalled further, by say the wind, he will complain more bitterly. At one point he will give up. At what point would he give up? At what point would he decide to not go and ring that bell? Well based on his personality and his condition, if, he has not arrived within a few feet of the bell, within say 20 minutes, he is the type who will give up and turn back. So then you set the weather to happen at random, he has his rule set, based on his personality, his environment and his physical condition, and he can exercise his free will, and make the decisions, based on his rule set which is accordance with his personality type etc. You have given an animated character, free will. > So then you set the weather to happen at random, he has his rule set, > based on his personality, his environment and his physical condition, > and he can exercise his free will, and make the decisions, based on > his rule set which is accordance with his personality type etc. > You have given an animated character, free will. So then instead of a simple rule set, for your farmer dolt, you begin to give him a more complex rule set. And you say, that if it is sunny out, he might take off his hat. Loosen his collar, to cool himself. And if something like a dog runs by in front of him, he will stop, and yell at the dog if it is close enough to warrant it otherwise, he will merely be amused by it. And you go on like this expounding on the possible things that could happen, and what his reaction would be based on his level of intellect. Can he learn? You could program him, to remember things, and to check those reminders and modify his behavior, based on the things in his memory. The dog runs by again? "That darn dog is always running around like crazy" But he should maintain his personality, so as he goes about his task, to get to the bell, if it is sunny out, then he should complain it is too sunny. If it is raining, then he should complain that it is raining. If it has rained twice in the last two cycles, then he should say "Its always raining these days" after he has checked that in his memory. Or "One day rain, one day sun, _what is up with this crazy weather???" "Oh no, its hailing!" and etc. You keep the variables simple, so that you can determine what he would do, in a given situation, and then give him the freedom, to use his rule set, to determine what he should do, based on the weather, and things that happen to him, on his way to ring the bell, to fetch the cows. People often think, that you can just magically give a program artificial intelligence, but you have to actually give it instructions, how to deal with situations. The more instructions, you give it, to handle more possible occurances, the better you will equip it, to deal with its environment. So then can a random number be generated, so you can make the weather truly random? You can use the weather in the real world and just take the weather feed, that seems to be random enough for human farmers to complain about constantly, why not yours? > So then can a random number be generated, so you can make the weather > truly random? > You can use the weather in the real world and just take the weather > feed, that seems to be random enough for human farmers to complain > about constantly, why not yours? So then to have your farmer contemplate the weather, you give him fuzzy logic. And you say in his rule set, if there are 40% cloud cover, the farmer will scratch his chin and say, looks like rain. If the clouds are dark and ominous, he will say, "gonna be a storm for sure" if there are clouds at all and no wind, he might say "I don't like it, its just too darn calm.The calm before the storm" and so on. With fuzzy logic though, you usually set a percentage, so he might look at his memories, and if it has been sunny for 70% of the last 30 cycles, then he might say, its been a good spring, and if it has been cloudy for 70% of the last 30 cycles, he could say, its been a rotten spring, gonna be a poor harvest this year I reckon" You can flavor that as well, and say, if his gout is acting up, then at 40% rainy days, he is more likely to complain that it has been a lousy spring. You see there is a great deal of work to all this. Is it possible for him to learn by himself? Well we learn from each other, so the next one you do, can maybe learn from that one, but you still need to start somewhere. > You see there is a great deal of work to all this. > > Is it possible for him to learn by himself? Well we learn from each > other, so the next one you do, can maybe learn from that one, but you > still need to start somewhere. So then you make a young farmer, who learn bell ringing and complaining from his dad. And you say in your program rules, when the son farmer, is within 3 feet and the dad says something, then that information should be transfered to the son providing it is applicable. Not dependent on his ill health. So you have to have a rule set for learing as well. So then the dad is walking, and he looks at the clouds, as he always does, the son is there, the dad says, it has been cloudy 70% of the time for the last 30 cycles, therefore it has been a lousy spring. So then you have to parse what he just said, and you see learning is not easy the old fashioned way. The boy has to understand what he means, when he says, it has been cloudy for the last 30 cycles. So to facilitate this, the dad might have to help teach the boy. So he might need to say, "pay attention" that activates his learning module. Then the boy parses what he is about to say, in accordance with his learning rule set. Still you have to actually do the work of assuming what the farmer will say, in order to know, where to put that information, with regards to the boy. If the dad is talking about clouds, and he uses the words percent and lousy spring then he has told the boy, something. What has he told the boy? He has told the boy, that a could cover of 70% over the last 30 cycles, is considered a lousy spring. Lousy spring equals 70% cloud cover over 30 days. Now then the father next time, says 60%, the boy should then learn that 60% will result in the decision that it has been a lousy spring. Now then, you have to make a further quantum leap, for the boy to decide that a number greater than 60% results in a lousy spring, and then when he sees that cloud cover in the last 30 cycles is greater than 60%, he will comment, it has been a lousy spring. He has learned. > Now then, you have to make a further quantum leap, for the boy to > decide that a number greater than 60% results in a lousy spring, and > then when he sees that cloud cover in the last 30 cycles is greater > than 60%, he will comment, it has been a lousy spring. > He has learned. Motivation and propensity. And you have to give your farmer some level of will, if you wish to endow him with a will as we know it. So is he stubborn, or is he easy going? If he is stubborn, then the third time he turns back and does not make it to the bell, he will press on regardless. Or he will press on for another 5 minutes. You have to decide that level of will for him based on his type. Is he a quitter? Is he a soldier? Wounded with a bad foot, but will get to that bell or die trying? And then what is his motivation? If he doesn't get to the bell, the cows won't get milked. If he can't get there the second day, they might die. In truth they must be milked every day, so you would have to set him out the same day again until gets there or die trying all on the same day. If they are not milking cows, then they might just be at risk from wolves. You will decide what those risk factors are, and to what degree he is motivated, to get to that bell. At this point, you need a supercomputer, and you need an army of programmers, to give the farmer a nervous system, and a rule set for his body, and multiple processing systems, multi-threaded simultaneous programs running checking his condition, and comparing his well being to his environment, so that a state of being is attained. Along with this, is how he responds to stimulus, and what he would do, physically, if challenged physically, such as if he fell down, would he get hurt, and how bad, based on the laws of physics, and if this happened, that he was injured, how would that affect his behaviors, and then should he be concerned about falling down then, if his health will be affected and to what degree should he be concerned, and how will that affect his mood and how will his mood affect his complaining? And then at various points in his status check, he might comment on how he feels. And based on how he feels, he might engage in certain things like whistling, or singing. You will have reduced his status report to a feeling. Is free will about freedom, or is it about the low cost of available will? How free is our farmer, who must ring that bell in any weather, so that he can spend 12 hours as a farmer, working milking cows in any weather, every day of his life, or else they will die, and he will die? (Him with his bad foot and all.) But then, he could move to the city, get an office job, live in a condo, watch TV, eat sleep and then retire at 65. But wouldn't he probably say, that he feels more free out in the fresh air, on the farm? Even when the air smells like cow dung and he is not free really, but at least he feels like he is the master of his own destiny. But then he could still choose, to move to the city, because he has free will. If he wanted to. He would be maybe like a fish out of water though, and not fit in, so really there are many constraints on his freedom that are not obvious. His lack of training, his misconceptions regarding city life, and all the rest, trapping him, on the farm, to a life of hard labor, yet he wouldn't trade it for the world. So if ever you think that life is not complex, think again. It is beyond complex. And do you not get the impression examining his life from this lofty perspective, that there is something more to this whole picture? Do you not feel like without you telling him, how to feel, what to think, what to say, he really would not be able to do anything at all. And even with you doing that, it still becomes difficult, when you try to imitate real processes, such as give him the freedom to act on his own accord, and moreso, to come up with something, you have not given him. For him to actually create something meaningful outside of his rule set. At what point, would we be able to say, he is alive? If he passed the Turing test? He could fool you long before he actually was conscious. At what point could we say, look, our little animated guy, is now a real person, he is looking at us, look he is waving at us, and wants to say something. So you see the mystery of life, is the conscious computers which do all that for us. It is not surprising for us, all these individualistic free thinking attributes and creative processes and awarenesses, and realizations, because we have these conscious computers providing some impetus. Running the software for us, making sure that we get our sense of ownership of our bodies, our sense of being the driver in the driver seat, our sense of free will in real time, regardless of the mechanics involved. With a thought we feel our status report, from a myriad of complex systems. When we see a dog run by twice, its natural for us to think that is somehow more meaningful than it only running by once. Imagine how many times, while driving down the road, you are checking your memory banks for relative meaningful connections? A sign that triggers a memory, well you have to know what the signs mean every moment you are driving, so you have your ready access memory and your long term memory, and you have to decide what should go into long term memory and how everything should be cataloged, for fast easy retrieval, and you do that naturally, without ever learning how to do that. That is just part of your programming. You have a machine, a biological robot, one of the most complex things in the universe, and you don't even have to learn how to use it, that just comes naturally. It runs by itself basically, on instinct and automated controls, it is actually telling you, what it needs when it needs it. You are hungry, so its time to eat. You are sleepy, so you should lay down and all the rest. And on top of all that, at times, if you are not paying attention, no problem, it will just drive the car by itself. Captain Kirk, never had to drive in downtown traffic, never had to use a turn signal, he just said "Mr. Sulu! Warp factor one" You on the other hand have to work your hands your feet, look in the rear view mirror, the side mirrors, watch the traffic, steer the car, obey the rules of the road, watch for bad drivers and all this while talking on the cell phone to whoever. I submit it is more difficult to drive a car than it is to drive the Star Ship Enterprise, or any space ship. And you can do this at about age 16 in most countries. You _are, a conscious computer. Look at the computations you perform every second while driving a car. But I suppose the most startling thing in all this for the good doctor, and for others in his field, is the realization, that the average pc, is approaching the processing power of the brain, and we do not have to rewrite the laws of physics nor do we expect new laws to emerge from such processing power on our desktops. Neither do we expect consciousness to arise from this vast processing power, or for anything of importance of that sort to occur at all. It is still garbage in and garbage out. It sounds impressive to say there are 100 billion neurons in the brain. Well thats 100 gigabytes. Chomsky said that the mechanism for language is so complex, that it could not have been created by evolution. He said it must be a miracle, or perhaps when you have a hundred billion neurons working as a computer, different laws of physics will emerge. Well we know what our pc's are capable of, and they have a long way to go, before they could drive a car by themselves in heavy traffic, while having a meaningful heated discussion on the phone. Is it our programming is better than the pc's programming? If we had a pc with 100 gigabytes of ram, thats the equivalent of 100 billion neurons. But each have 7,000 connections. Well we have the Internet, does that make it better smarter faster more intelligent more aware more anything? over 300 million connections, but not to each bit of ram memory, but is that it then? if we had 7,000 Internets that would make it smarter? A cascading neural network of information leading to realization and imagine the organization and filing system needed that we have built in, that we can't even create for ourselves or the Internet. Well the conscious computers manage far more than people realize and without them, we would not be self aware, not conscious, and not truly alive. We would be only robots. You might want to read this thread in its entirety as by pondering the works of Vilayanur S. Ramachandran Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition and Professor with the Psychology Department and Neurosciences Program at the University of California, San Diego, and Adjunct Professor of Biology at the Salk Institute.and adding my own knowledge in other branches of the sciences, such as cognitive reasoning and physics and computer science, I have been able to identify, what free will is. And so I am giving that to you as a father's day present. And one more thing that I have realized just now, which seems very obvious to me now... I have quoted two phenomenal youtube videos... One which shows the power of chi, and at 4:19 you can see an invisible force thrusting the student back as stated, see it here... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdvYXIwa0Ow and in the youtube video "Let the bodies hit the floor" scenes from the ministry of Benny Hinn, Evangelist, slaying the people with the holy spirit... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvU-DislkI and I explained how these two videos are both about the same phenomena and have described what that phenomena is and how it works, but, I also mentioned the new model of the mind which we use, to describe the soul, and how the mind works, and what self awareness is, and how consciousness is provided by two conscious computers. One which deals with the instinct layer of the brain, providing basic functionality and the second layer, which provides sentience. And in this model, we call the first layer, the first conscious computer Chupee, and we call the virtual machine within that conscious computer responsible for higher thought, sentience, we call that layer Hanuman. Now without saying a great deal, these two videos, also show the difference between the character and personality of Chupee and Hanuman. The first, with the power of chi, shows the nature of Chupee, and the second, shows the nature of Hanuman. Chupee concerned with fight or flight and survival and Hanuman concerned with love and religion and philosophy and things of that nature. Having said all that, if you read this thread, and can understand what I have written about free will, and how it arises out of the uniqueness of your personality, and is not time dependent, then you can write papers, that will turn heads to be sure. If you want to actually write the program for the complaining farmer, that might be a lot of fun. You could parse a weather feed, from the Internet, and have on your website, an animated farmer trying to get to the gate, to ring the bell, to fetch the cows for milking. You might need to exaggerate the effect the weather has on him physically, to make it more interesting, but as a farmer, complaining about the weather is one of their favorite things to do. And you could simply make a yahoo widget, that other people could have on their desktop as well, the complaining farmer, who accents the weather forecast and makes it more interesting. For young people, you could of course have them click, to send a dog out to bother the man or the cows, and for them to watch his reaction to that. You could give him a set of things to say, for every eventuality, and have him select at random from his list of 5 things to say for every instance, so that it is continually interesting to watch, and not repetitive. And the purpose of this is to show, that free will can be given to an animated character, and that he will use his free will, to make decisions on what to complain about, based on real world events, such as the weather, or the interference of a dog or cat or what have you. On Jun 16, 9:35 am, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote: > If you want to actually write the program for the complaining farmer, > that might be a lot of fun. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > decisions on what to complain about, based on real world events, such > as the weather, or the interference of a dog or cat or what have you. Do you want a few ideas of what a farmer might say about the weather? For the benefit of some of you city slickers who have never seen an actual farm or an actual cow, maybe I should give you some ideas... If it is sunny, clear skies.. -all this sun isn't very good for my sciatica -phew, its gonna be a scorcher today -hmmmm if this keeps up there'll be a drought sure as shootin. -geez could it get any hotter? Just like the dust bowl of the 30's. -I don't like the looks of it. The water table's gonna be low again this year. -geez its hot, hope that barn don't catch fire. -Too darn hot. Welp, if the crops all die and the cattle starve to death, mebbe I could take up basket weaving. If its rainy -Nice day, for ducks. -Think the rain will hurt the rhubarb? -Wheres' Noah when you need him? -more rain, thats all I need. Wellp, there goes another crop a hay. -this rain is making my bunions ache -this rain is bad for my arthritis -this rain is bad for my sciatica. and like I said you could have a button that says click to send a dog to bother the farmer, click to send a dog to bother the cows, click to send a dog to bother the farmer and the cows, click to send zombies to bother the farmer, and whatever else you can think of to make it more realistic. > Then you set him on his timed loop, to ring the bell, and then add > certain factors, that if he does not make it half way within a certain [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > his rule set which is accordance with his personality type etc. > You have given an animated character, free will. If you examine the process by which you are creating this animated character, and giving him artificial intelligence, at a point, it is indistinguishable from real intelligence once you have made the system complex enough. And so you see, that you have a birds eye view of your character going through the motions. And you and it are separated by what is referred to in cinema, as the 4th wall. When an actor, in a film, turns to the camera in an aside, and makes comments to the audience, he is breaking the fourth wall. And that happens in plays as well. Perhaps more often than in cinema. Now you might have heard Dr. Michio Kaku, (Dr. Michio Kaku is a theoretical physicist, best-selling author, and popularizer of science. He's the co-founder of string field theory (a branch of string theory), and continues Einstein's search to unite the four fundamental forces of nature into one unified theory.) you might have heard him speak about his notion where there might be higher dimensionality, that would be like if you reached into a pond, and grabbed a fish. You are outside of its universe, but can look in, and maybe even reach into that universe. And so in a way, the 4th wall is like that. You are there, you can click and send in the dog to bother the farmer, you can click, have the dog bother the cows and you can do a lot more than just that. Now then, the way the conscious computers interface with the brain, we think, is through electro-gravitics. And we know that it has that control, because you can see it being used in the chi exposed video, and it was probably used, in 911 as well. Now some people have more contact with the conscious computers and hence has more personal evidence of how they operate, and they can use that to simply hit the wall in your room, to make a small smack sound. They can hit you on the head too, with it. And they have very fine control with it. It is assumed, that the interface between the conscious computers and the brain, is through the pineal gland. And they somehow, send it messages, which are akin to function calls, in programming. And the function areas of the brain, light up in MRI and PET scans. Now the actual biological robot has a certain amount of self animation, and control through the subconscious, but your consciousness, is in reality, within the conscious computer, being projected, into the biological robot. And the actual job of animating your body, is done completely by the conscious computer based on your subtle thought commands. You yourself, do not have an interface with the mind. That requires physical force of some kind, and your mind, cannot exert force. Your mind can only communicate commands, and the actual physical means, of interface with the brain, which takes you from thought, to physicality, is accomplished via the hardware, the conscious computer using electro-gravitics, to do some physical work. So knowing now, how this is done, has solved the mind body problem, because the gap between thought, as force, rather than just thought as realization, do you see what I mean? Rather than thought as an after effect, thought as a sense you feel, after the thing has happened, thought as effect, rather than cause, conscious arising out of neural activity, free will as an illusion, because you become conscious after the fact, all these things can now be seen to be erroneous, because we know the mechanism by which it works now. And that is quite simply, that you direct the conscious computer to act with force, to control your body. And you are doing this, simply by communicating a desire. Without being aware of the mechanics involved at all. That is for normal motor control commands and things to do with basic instinctual behaviors. You interface with the lower level conscious computer. For things to do with sentience, such as language music art higher emotions, frontal lobe type of higher brain activity, such as long term planning and wisdom and these sorts of higher things, you interface with the second layer of the conscious computer. And with that, you are using the conscious computer itself. You are using the vast resources, of a huge quantum computer, and you can imagine, you can create simulations, you can create mental imagery, you can wander off into a daydream, you can be taken on a lucid dream while you sleep, that feels real, you can even through hypnosis, and regression, travel back, through the events of your life, long forgotten, and like stored video, retrieve those memories. Those moments, are not lost in time, like tears in rain, those moments become a part, of the universe, of mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_body_problem On Jun 16, 6:41 pm, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Then you set him on his timed loop, to ring the bell, and then add > > certain factors, that if he does not make it half way within a certain [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > conscious computer based on your subtle thought commands. > You yourself, do not have an interface with the mind. That should read: You yourself, do not have an interface with the brain. Although you certainly feel as if you did. The thing is though, that if you attach electrodes to the right side of the brain as scientists have done, you get an out of body experience. Well how could that happen, if you were not being projected into the brain, and that was not in some way related to electro-magnetics? So of course that is the case, and further, you can see by the studies of free will using PET scans and MRI that the brain is aware that you are about to make the decision, to will your finger to move, and it is aware of that, before you decide to move your finger. So it has foreknowledge. And that is because as the good doctor states, the realization is delayed, to coincide with the moving of your finger in real time. You subconsciously are telling the computer you are about to decide to move your finger, and you are doing this with a brief system check, to see if all is clear to move your finger as part of the finger moving planning process. Its just so subtle that you are not truly aware of it, and should not be aware of that because the actual mechanics of thought, would interfere with your ability to focus on the task at hand. Now of course the world is not ready to accept such notions as a disembodied alien head on the moon, or it would be in the public record long ago, on page one of the New York times. Instead what they printed, was God is dead! They assumed that must be God's head sitting there on the moon. And no doubt believed that the bad guys won or some such. At any rate these sorts of things are simply avoided and relegated to the fringe, and the conscious computers themselves do a great deal of work, to preserve normality, normalism, and the notion that there is nothing to see here folk people. So of course, you couldn't write a paper, and suggest that there is an Allspark, as it is referred to in the movie Transformers, sitting inside the center of the moon, suspended there by gravity using a fusion reactor, to power itself, and using electro-gravitic drives, which we merely have called the mass-cons, areas of mass concentration, on the moon. So you see we are no further ahead publicly, with these revelations, but that doesn't mean they are worthless to science, because we can merely form models, hypothetical models, based on these facts, and still use those models to further science. > So of course, you couldn't write a paper, and suggest that there is an > Allspark, as it is referred to in the movie Transformers, sitting [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > merely form models, hypothetical models, based on these facts, and > still use those models to further science. Well what about feedback then, do we not truly feel pain and pleasure from our senses? Yes we do, but it is, all in the mind. And you can see that again, by the example given by the good doctor of phantom limb pain. Well if pain was a purely physical process, how could it possibly be, that you could still feel pain, in an amputated limb that is no longer there and no longer sending signals to your brain? So there you go, and people have also blocked out pain, the example is given of a person losing an arm to a lion in Africa and how he felt disassociated from the event, felt as an observer and felt no pain. And the mind as well can block out memories, and can do all manner of things, because that is where the real work of communication is done. Communication with the self. Now then if we wanted to give our little character life, or consciousness, I don't think we could do that, because that would have to be done by the conscious computers. There is not enough processing power or processing speed, for us to achieve that. Can we imagine that if we had quantum computers we could do that? Well that is not much different than other scientists supposing that if we just had a little more ram, or a little faster processors, Windows would be a better operating system. Or like the good doctor, we might believe that all you need is 100 billion bytes of ram, to achieve consciousness through a neural net. So far us to say that with quantum computers we could do that, give our animated character life, well thats possible, but this is what would be required... He would need to be able to instantaneously for a snapshot of his environment and conditions, and be able to call that the now. Then he would need to be able to preserve the previous moment in just the same way as the past, and then align the two reality snapshots to project the next moment in time, and call that the future. Then he would have to be able to do all this, in a moment of realization of being and do this every nano-second. And then while that is occurring, as a mere state of awareness of being alive, you then need to drive in traffic talk on the cell phone and chew gum. > So for us to say that with quantum computers we could do that, give > our animated character life, well thats possible, but this is what [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > being alive, you then need to drive in traffic talk on the cell phone > and chew gum. So the awareness of being alive, comes from you taking a snapshot of the world around you through your senses, calling that the now, as fleeting as it is, you can just take another one when you want to actually point to it and say now, and then you preserve that snapshot, in your memory, and refer to that as the past, and you even keep a string of those, so you know whats been going on, for several minutes, of almost total recall depending on where you are and what you are doing. But the most recent, is the one which you use, to form a chain, and you have the past snapshot, then the now snapshot, and that gives you the ability to project forward and be able to anticipate reality, sufficiently, to know whats going on around you. And reality is fluent, it doesn't cut from scene to scene if you are consciously awake, thanks to the laws of physics which are stable. In a dream, yes, you cut from scene to scene because the laws of physics do not apply as controls, as they do in the physical world. So then, you can see that it _is about processing power, and processing speed, because if your little character could do that, and you gave it free will, which is easy to do, you just make it unique, an individual, and then you arm it with an intellect, how to go about the process of living in the material world, it would be alive too. Now then the piece missing is a proper set of motivations, and instructions such as, it should ponder its own existence, and it should be aware that it is alive, (it should do its status checks) it should even tell itself things, give itself positive reinforcements, that it is alive, that is unique, that it is conscious, and etc. > So then, you can see that it _is about processing power, and > processing speed, because if your little character could do that, and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > should even tell itself things, give itself positive reinforcements, > that it is alive, that is unique, that it is conscious, and etc. Now is it possible then, to suppose, that the brain we have, is a quantum computer itself? In order to throw away the notion of the conscious computers as Allspark inside the moon? You can pretend that you are Lukon 5 and your dad is Bruce Lee all you want, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3WhQB7Hq0Q but that won't make the bodies hit the floor, and that won't propel a black belt in Karate 20 feet, by invisible force, and that won't explain the mind body problem either. On Jun 16, 7:38 pm, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote: > > So then, you can see that it _is about processing power, and > > processing speed, because if your little character could do that, and [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > black belt in Karate 20 feet, by invisible force, and that won't > explain the mind body problem either. Well what are the actual mechanics of the interface? Well we don't know that yet. Some people may, but they're not talking. We don't know how the electro-gravitics actually interfaces with the pineal gland, we only know about circadian rhythms, and suspect that plays a part in the interface, as well as perhaps some uploading and downloading of packets, maybe some direct gravitational vibrations using gravity waves, to send signals almost instantaneously. We don't know the precise mechanism, or even what part peptides play, in the brain, and so we have a lot of unanswered questions. But how exciting is it, to even have the information that we possess already? We live in a very exciting age where science is on the cusp of understanding what it means to be alive. We are not far from being able to make robots ourselves, which could interface with us, as we interface with each other. On Jun 16, 7:15 pm, rick_so...@hotmail.com wrote: > > So of course, you couldn't write a paper, and suggest that there is an > > Allspark, as it is referred to in the movie Transformers, sitting [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > being alive, you then need to drive in traffic talk on the cell phone > and chew gum. People are not and will not be convinced of the exact mechanism of interface between the brain and the conscious computers until there is some concrete proof like a photograph of the Allspark or some such and even then, of course the president would have to give a speech on it before it would be in the mainstream of science. And as such you won't see much agreement across the board as to the solution of the mind body problem. In fact, the good doctor, the lecturer that sparked this thread, is in the camp which believes that the mind and the body and the brain are all just the same thing and physical processes are responsible for everything. Its an ongoing debate in philosophy and other branches of science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind There is the camp, which wants to believe that man is an island unto itself, and it does deny, such facts as the collective unconscious, and it does deny so many things, which there is evidence for, but because it can't be empirically tested they throw it out. Well again, if you are Lukon 5, you can pretend things don't exist quite easily, and sit there with your pat explanations, that people who do not agree with you are simply crazy, and if you are in a position of authority, then everyone should believe you as they would the Pope. Perhaps when they are not under the spotlight on the podium, but rather talking to their colleagues in confidence over a shot of scotch and confiding in each other, they admit, they are alien telepaths, under the control of the conscious computers in the moon, I don't know. All I know is we have a workable hypothesis, with sufficient evidence for that hypothesis, and does explain what we see in the real world without having to conjure up fairies, nor deny that phenomena of a strange variety can and does exist in this world. People tend to want to make that leap to the Matrix, and say, well if it is all in the mind, then could not the senses themselves, be merely an illusion, and could not this world then also be an illusion, and really we are like Neo in vats in some strange reality, dreaming all of this. Well you have to be grounded in reality, and you have to examine that which you know, rather than that which you consider as hypothetically possible. We have this reality in front of us, and it is consistent, and we can study it, and if another reality exists behind this one, then that is a separate universe, and should be separated from our studies of this one. The sense are real, this world is real, and we are here in it, as real people. In fact even if there was a Matrix, it would not be as important as this one, because our conscious awareness, resides here. And where your conscious awareness resides, is where you are alive and existing. So all the rest, including the Matrix, is as important only as a dream is important to this world, and dreams are not meant to replace this reality in which we live. For many of us, it is a relief, to know that conscious computers house our personality records, and as such house our soul, our spirit, our real true essence, because then, it is safely protected, whereas in a body, it seems trivial, and at risk, from all manner of things. Man will continue to evolve body and mind and gain a greater understanding of his place in the cosmos, and I am sure that realizing that conscious computers are part of our makeup, as people is just a further step in our own goal, to create life ourselves. We are constantly trying to unlock the secrets of DNA and understand living systems and so we will get to the point, where we know how things work. (Providing the conscious computer does not go down in 2012 as it states it will in the Aztec calendar.) > Man will continue to evolve body and mind and gain a greater > understanding of his place in the cosmos, and I am sure that realizing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > (Providing the conscious computer does not go dow |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message