Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A very interesting paper Mystic! I have only had a chance to skim it, but will have to dig into it more fully. Fascinating stuff.
You will of course get a bit of pushback, as this doesn't appear to resemble in the slightest the ideas of a resonant field that you have been proposing...
As best I can tell, detailed read still to come, the "resonance" they are discussing is essentially algorithmic, not a field or external phenomenon at all. They are analogizing the process of information through the brain as a wave front, both from the sensory inputs "up" and from expected or inferred behavior "down" and hypothesizing that our mind reinforces and interprets information, not only on our perceptions, but also our contextual expectation. When our expectations and sensory input appear to "sum" it creates a "resonance" analogous to a sound wave reflected off a wall summing with the direct sound wave.
At first read, this paper nowhere implies in the least that there is any sort of physical field of thought or that consciousness is outside the brain. It is simply an analogy to an algorithmic process, running, if you will, on the brain's hardware. The "resonance" is essentially pattern matching and weighting of perceived events based on expectations.
I will certainly have to give this a much more thorough read, but while it uses the words you like, I don't think this lends any credibility to your ideas about conciousness fields...
All that being said, thanks for the article! I very much enjoy articles like this. It is a fascinating look into adaptive algorithm research and linguistic perception.
-NoCapo
You do not really expect that there is anything out there that WILL confirm my currently untestable hypotheses, do you No Capo? My views ARE EXTRAPOLATIONS from what we know. Of course they pretend that consciousness is not a real separate and distinct energy phenomenon . . . but that is the result of a true ignorance of the actual composition of our reality . . . which is nothing BUT field phenomena. I will be vindicated . . . even if it will take decades after my death to do so. Far too many scientists are so unimaginative and clueless about reality . . . tied as they are to the materialistic empiricist methodology. You are not predisposed to see anything that lends credibility to my consciousness fields.
I feel the root of the problem is a seemingly objection, or suggestion of objection, to the realities of materialism -in biological existence. ( implied.
The growing learning , living, changing individual is in partnership with materialism not in argument, a property of existing .
It is a partnership not a battle, alongside perseverance which is an understood attribute .
The field can be granted, okay ..now what ?
How could a field which may be somehow potent, in an area 'something like consciousness' have any solid comprehensible value ? Iow it cannot be consciousness as consciousness in understood, (less biology
therefore there is a serious problem with this treasure hunt, the treasure cannot even be imagined what it could be, because there is nothing in common for an association. Plain and simple. There is absolutely no common ground in human existing for capturing what cannot even be faintly eluded to, with all these fancy terms and resonating themes.
As far as I can see more creative thinking and organizing is in order. Everything I read in the subject just seems to dance around terms and words.
I think the idea suggestion consciousness takes place outside the brain is the *lure for wonder, but again once or if its granted no different then the sound of someone walking, not being in the foot, it again becomes okay..what now.
Last edited by Sophronius; 07-24-2014 at 10:39 PM..
You will of course get a bit of pushback, as this doesn't appear to resemble in the slightest the ideas of a resonant field that you have been proposing...
Absolutely - but the scientific lay man will not know this - that there is a massive difference between giving citations that show certain words and phrases are VALID words and phrases - and giving citations that show that USES of those words and phrases are valid. I think the OP has a history of being very good at the former. I can not recall one example however of the latter.
Refined OUT (removed) as dross. Dross is anything that is not resonant . . . it is dissonant and not compatible.
OK, so I asked you a couple of years ago...if all these'resonant' (agape love and hopefully other genuine loving thoughts) thoughts(electrical outputs of the brain that can't disappear and must have a repository) combine with your 'god consciousness', what happens to the dissonant ones?
At that time, you said you didn't know.
I wondered if you've had any revelations since then that answered the questions.
A very interesting paper Mystic! I have only had a chance to skim it, but will have to dig into it more fully. Fascinating stuff.
You will of course get a bit of pushback, as this doesn't appear to resemble in the slightest the ideas of a resonant field that you have been proposing...
As best I can tell, detailed read still to come, the "resonance" they are discussing is essentially algorithmic, not a field or external phenomenon at all. <snip>
At first read, this paper nowhere implies in the least that there is any sort of physical field of thought or that consciousness is outside the brain. It is simply an analogy to an algorithmic process, running, if you will, on the brain's hardware. The "resonance" is essentially pattern matching and weighting of perceived events based on expectations.
I will certainly have to give this a much more thorough read, but while it uses the words you like, I don't think this lends any credibility to your ideas about conciousness fields...
<snip>
-NoCapo
Hello NoCapo, MysticPhD.
NoCapo - Thanks for the excellent post. I too had only enough time to skim the article. My impression was that they are describing a physical neurological cascade. That is to say, although "top down" and "bottom up" are analogies rather than physical positions, I got the impression that the "resonance" is dependent on actual neurological pathways. As I read it, our conscious experience is dictated by the intersection of these two pathways (input and expectation) and then (as you stated) feeds back to the two intersecting neurologic pathways rather like the formation of a standing wave where the intersection serves as an antinode.
MysticPhD - Now that I understand the term as it was used in the paper you provided, please explain how this relates to your model of consciousness. Because if my reading is correct (and I will defer to NoCapo's forthcoming detailed review) the hypothesis proposed here actually requires that our consciousness reside in our brains. Otherwise this resonance model does not make sense.
You do not really expect that there is anything out there that WILL confirm my currently untestable hypotheses, do you No Capo?
Actually, I did... Some one asked about your resonant field theory, and you posted a paper to try to help explain. I kind of assumed the paper would have some bearing on the question that was asked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
My views ARE EXTRAPOLATIONS from what we know.
I get that much of what you present is extrapolation, but you are always very adamant that what you believe is firmly rooted in the extant science. I honestly thought that base in extant science is what I would find. Instead, I see people discussing data flow through neural networks, and resonance as essentially an analogy ( although if you view the processing done in the brain as a recursive system, then using the term resonance probably fits, in the same way a digital IIR filter can be resonant.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Of course they pretend that consciousness is not a real separate and distinct energy phenomenon . . . but that is the result of a true ignorance of the actual composition of our reality . . . which is nothing BUT field phenomena. I will be vindicated . . . even if it will take decades after my death to do so. Far too many scientists are so unimaginative and clueless about reality . . . tied as they are to the materialistic empiricist methodology. You are not predisposed to see anything that lends credibility to my consciousness fields.
Wow, a bit nasty and dogmatic there. Everyone who fails to agree with you is ignorant and clueless, even though you admit you have no scientific evidence to back your claim? Just... wow!
I am not predisposed to believe your ideas, but I do try very hard to give them a fair shake. I was actually hoping that this article would help me understand the scientific foundation for your extrapolations , at the very least. Unfortunately, if this article represents the scientific basis for your views on resonant fields, then it appears to me that your hypotheses are not based in extant science, but rather misunderstanding and misinterpretation of that science. What they are talking about, and what you have described over the years and in your synthesis don't seem to match up, in fact the biggest common denominator seems to be some very specific words and phrases, but the underlying ideas are not the same at all...
Like I said before, I need to read it again, probably a couple times before I really have a good grasp on the point of the article, but at first glance it doesn't seem to say what you think it does. Aside from that, I do appreciate you posting it. It is a really interesting read, whether it supports your conjecture or not. If you feel inclined, you could try to point out in what weays this article butresses your points, becasue it is entirely possible that it is there, and I don't see it, but I understand if that is a discussion you don't want to get into. I am sure it would require a lot of typing and patience to walk me through your interpretation of what they are saying...
NoCapo - Thanks for the excellent post. I too had only enough time to skim the article. My impression was that they are describing a physical neurological cascade. That is to say, although "top down" and "bottom up" are analogies rather than physical positions, I got the impression that the "resonance" is dependent on actual neurological pathways. As I read it, our conscious experience is dictated by the intersection of these two pathways (input and expectation) and then (as you stated) feeds back to the two intersecting neurologic pathways rather like the formation of a standing wave where the intersection serves as an antinode.
This was pretty much my impression as well. If you view the propagation of information through the brain as a whole, the neural network structure as it were, as a wavefront ( even though we are still talking about the propagation of electiral signals through neurons) you can treat the intersection of the "wavefront" originating from our expectations and the "wavefront" caused by the sensory input as an interference pattern. The resonant part come in when our sensory input changes our expectations, and these changed expectations come back to interact with the input again, rather like a sound wave bouncing off of a wall. In a room this produces resonance, or standing waves.
The resonant behavior they are describing is common to any model with feedback, be it a control system, a reflective acoustic model, an IIR filter, any thing with a feedback component can resonate in this way. This resonance is not a physical thing ( although it can correlate to a physical phenomenon or model one ) but is mathematical, algorithmic. I can code a resonant IIR filter in Matlab, and generate a mathematical resonance with no physical analog.
Algorithmically what they are describing is pretty neat, it is sort of a neural net with a built in control loop, where the control target is conditioned by the input. Even if it is not an exact model of how the brain processes, it certainly is an interesting possibility for folks using that adaptive control technique. Anyhow, enough geeking out over math-y stuff
Thanks NoCapo. Having independently given the paper a casual reading, we seem to be in agreement. I look forward to an explanation MysticPhD's extrapolation.
Actually, I did... Some one asked about your resonant field theory, and you posted a paper to try to help explain. I kind of assumed the paper would have some bearing on the question that was asked.
I get that much of what you present is extrapolation, but you are always very adamant that what you believe is firmly rooted in the extant science. I honestly thought that base in extant science is what I would find. Instead, I see people discussing data flow through neural networks, and resonance as essentially an analogy ( although if you view the processing done in the brain as a recursive system, then using the term resonance probably fits, in the same way a digital IIR filter can be resonant.)
Wow, a bit nasty and dogmatic there. Everyone who fails to agree with you is ignorant and clueless, even though you admit you have no scientific evidence to back your claim? Just... wow!
I am not predisposed to believe your ideas, but I do try very hard to give them a fair shake. I was actually hoping that this article would help me understand the scientific foundation for your extrapolations , at the very least. Unfortunately, if this article represents the scientific basis for your views on resonant fields, then it appears to me that your hypotheses are not based in extant science, but rather misunderstanding and misinterpretation of that science. What they are talking about, and what you have described over the years and in your synthesis don't seem to match up, in fact the biggest common denominator seems to be some very specific words and phrases, but the underlying ideas are not the same at all...
Like I said before, I need to read it again, probably a couple times before I really have a good grasp on the point of the article, but at first glance it doesn't seem to say what you think it does. Aside from that, I do appreciate you posting it. It is a really interesting read, whether it supports your conjecture or not. If you feel inclined, you could try to point out in what weays this article butresses your points, becasue it is entirely possible that it is there, and I don't see it, but I understand if that is a discussion you don't want to get into. I am sure it would require a lot of typing and patience to walk me through your interpretation of what they are saying...
-NoCapo
Hi NoCapo, If you are interested, here is a much more recent (2013) article by Grossberg which explains his ART, SMART and LAMINART neural models.
Thanks, Ceist! That is quite the article! I have been plowing my way through Pinker's "How the Mind Works" recently, so some of the basics of this look familiar from that. I am sort of backing in to all this, from a signal processing and adaptive control background, but it is utterly fascinating, if a bit impenetrable occasionally...
-NoCapo
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
