Mike

Did you read it. It is short. In March, 2005, he held an event to announce "the fundamental mechanism of cognition" dubbed Confabulation Theory, which he believes is a process of confabulation (neural networks). He posits that all actions and thoughts begin as the "winners" of competitions, where confabulations are tested for cogency based on antecedent support. */*/*/* Also http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Confabulation_theory_(computational_intelligence) Confabulation is central to a theory of cognition and consciousness by S. L. Thaler in which thoughts and ideas originate in both biological and synthetic neural networks as false or degraded memories nucleate upon various forms of neuronal and synaptic fluctuations and damage.

I just gave you 3. Didn't you see them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hecht-Nielsen That gives a little bit on it. This man, Robert Hecht-Nielsen, was one of the guest speakers at the UCSD group I attended. He was involved in the first A.I. machines that could read human hand-writing. Every Post Office has one now. After his talk I visited him at his office one day and we talked about confabulation. Years later he published on it, and we e-mailed about it more. He liked my work on confabulation, but I don't think he used it.

My very first post here in 2002 was about a paper I did for them on confabulation in normals. I somewhat duplicated that report in another thread in 2007. I think I mentioned this to someone yesterday. I also mentioned here some of the things I learned, such as synaptic pruning, a very exciting subject.

Gee wizz, I forget most of them from 15 and 20 years ago. They are in the archive, most of them; some got pruned. I just did one from GMWD p 172 a few minutes ago. There also were a couple just weeks ago. Do you remember the quiz I gave in the Absent Christ thread that no one had the answer to? I think it was on the benefits of an absent Christ. There was another quiz everybody flunked in the NT Canon thread about the spelling of Llamsa, … er, …ah, I mean, about the odd words that shouldn’t be in Lamsa’s Eli Eli verse.

I can agree that "household" got out of hand, and/or under-taught. Not so sure if it is in the film class, though. I can check. Hey! I forget things from the class too! I need review also. It may be in the collaterals, but not made a big deal of, like it was in the TVTs. There was a LOT of household talk in the TVTs. (TVT = Twi Verbal Tradition) As far as “Yet 100% of PFAL graduates move directly from the class into living in this doctrinal and practical error.” …… I would say that would depend on the year and the area and the local leadership. In years after 1986, all bets are off. I heard lots of "household" talk that was terrible. All kinds of crazy things went on in TWI for years after the big meltdown in 1986-90. I heard it got even crazier in the last years of Craig. But before 1982, when the Corps and Craig started seriously taking over, the “100% of PFAL graduates move directly from the class into living in this doctrinal and practical error” would be something I would hotly contest. We non-Corps hardly heard the word household then. All that came later. */*/*/*/* This following question could count as an entry in a challenge-list someone presented me with today. This could be one of the items everyone forgot or never absorbed in the first go-around. There was ANOTHER special group (within the household even) that we were warned about in one collateral chapter in GMWD called "ecclesiastical bodies." Does anyone here recognize that phrase? Here is how we saw it and forgot it, or glossed over it: GMWD p. 172 “When the first century believers stopped walking in the light of the great mystery, as the epistle to the Ephesians unfolds it so fully, they lost the power which comes with understanding the mystery which is the center of all true Christian faith, the one Body of Christ. “The immediate consequence of the loss of this truth brought about many erroneous doctrines. It initiated the different so-called “bodies,” consequently causing many divisions and schisms within the Church. Instead of rightly dividing the Word of Truth and recognizing the one Body which God made, as disclosed in Ephesians 4:4, men established their own ecclesiastical bodies and sects.” I always thought it odd that no one ever connected “ecclesiastical bodies” with the Way Corps.

You really can't make a promise for the others like that. Did you know that I was attacked here 2 months BEFORE my first post here? There were TWO separate threads here about me, one of which posted long quotes from a private letter written my me. The other thread about me was a poster mocking me, from a phone call I had with him. No, the bias here and the urge for some posters to behave childishly is too great here for detailed simple discussions. I know how to discuss things in a civil way. That is often not returned in kind here.

YIKES! What are you doing to me? I just noticed that one of those videos is over 3 hours long!

Thanks for the links. Without listening yet, I will predict that the WHOLE TOPIC he is explaining is a GIANT CONFABULATION we all suffer from, which is our perception of reality. Just a guess. Since the rainy season is happening here lately I may have time to listen to them today.

You mind has become jaded.

You must have missed the post where I said I was like a groupie there. You also missed the main point: "...it was just a group of folks (superstar brain scientists) getting together..." If you ever get the chance to be a mere tag-along groupie with the world's top brain scientists, I would strongly suggest you jump on such a great learning experience.

We are talking about a THEORY. In my theory I START OUT with considering the body and soul man, because that it easier. In Physics, students are started out with analyzing something very simple: a pendulum. By working on all the details of a pendulum, which is super simple, the details of how planets orbit the Sun becomes workable. Science always limits itself to the measurable and the simple; that mean body and soul only for discussions on free will. Spiritless man is where I start out in my theory, because that is a simple place to begin.

That is EXACTLY what I have been saying. Body and soul can be proved; spirit cannot.

It is all in the archive for you to find, if you are interested.

That is the old fashioned way. There are other ways to get an idea considered. Grad students are easy to get an hearing from. Most professors will read a well written and concise letter or text. I have had a lot of luck doing that. It also works for super-star authors, who spend a lot of time reading in airport lounges. In his autobiography, Abbie Hoffman relates how he did this in the olden days of pen, paper, and typewriters, and how often he got through to celebrities and politicians.

Actually, it is often the case that I back off or avoid a topic due to my lack of understanding. That would be totally transparent to you, or you might conclude I was dodging to avoid being proved wrong. Much more often it's the case that because I have been continuously reviewing PFAL since the mid 80s, I find that lots of things were forgotten by folks here, so I speak up. The more I know from my constant reviewing, the louder I post.

Actually, this is one reason I want to post my theory here. I honestly never thought to study free will in angels. Before the Pandemic, I did a lot of free will "surveys" at Star Bucks. It's also a great way to talk to ladies. But I never saw a real angel there, so never studied how they do it or did it. My guess is the Bible says nothing about it, or next to nothing. That's the way it is with the Bible and free will for people: very skimpy. I was surprised at this in the early 1970s. I could find nothing substantial in the Bible on it. I did get those 3 tips from VPW, though.

It is more complicated when spirit is present. That in itself is good reason to resort to the less complicated, body and soul man. I don't need to know the exact reasons, and neither do you, to look FIRST at the simple before graduating to the more complex. */*/*/* Now, THAT being said, I might speculate that having spirit means more avenues of learning. Since my analysis shows free will is a complex learning thing, it is too complicated to consider learning via spirit. Maybe God can boost "will power" via spirit. OK. Now it's your turn to speculate. PLUS, if I want to make my research marketable to neuroscientists, I must start with the body and soul man. That is all they want to hear about.

Here we are talking about neuroscience and free will in the wrong thread, and meanwhile YOUR thread on free will versus determinism languishes under the shadow of some music director. Maybe I should get things rolling there? How big is the largest possible post? I have 5 or 6 chapters on my free will book already written, and it would be nice if I could post an entire chapter in one post.

LoL. I just realized we were talking about free will in the PFAL sucks thread.

I am not sure. I have confined my focus to the most simple possible situation, and hope to build from there. The most simple situation I know of with free will is a natural man, with body and soul only. I suspect that early Christian and later (around 1200) Thomas Aquinas confused the whole free will issue by focusing on Christian free will, for those with spirit added. That changes a lot; more than I can inventory. So they had spiritual free will in the Middle Ages. Later, just about 400 years ago, the Enlightenment Philosophers secularized this spiritual free will into a godless, but still mystical form of free will called different names. Two currently popular names are Libertarian Free Will (LibFW) and the other is Contra-Causal Free Will. They are mystical in the sense that they are almost 100% pure opposites of what is known in science as Determinism, Physics Determinism to be precise. My approach is to de-mystify free will and look for it in Biology as a deterministic mechanism like digestion. I have to re-define "freedom" here but that is ok, because it needs it. */*/*/* My new approach is to look for freedoms that can be "bought" by using acceptable deterministic patterns to overrule unacceptable deterministic patterns. In other words, instead of always looking at determinism for the prisons it can make, it can also be used to free us from some prisons. Determinism can be our friend; it can be useful in the brain for making better decisions.

I know nothing about free will in angels.

I am talking about free will of human beings, and more specifically, the free will of natural men, having no spirit. Because a natural man has free will, I say free will is therefore Biological.

I'm not understanding what you mean here. But let me ask something of you, and the rest. What can I do to calm things down? I see how things degenerate into food fights about me, and that is not what I want. I try to post what I honestly think people need and have a right to hear, and then I get many responses, to which I try to answer a lot of, and the cycle starts, and soon becomes chaos. So what should I do now? I was cooperative and stayed in the Absent Christ thread, then followed it into Doctrinal, then a special thread is made for me in the NT Canon, and then another one made for me in About the Way, and I finally I answer a long standing challenge to respond to penworks so I do in this thread. You folks seem to have a anti-idol being constantly manufactured that is very fragile, and all it takes is one thankful PFAL grad to post a few key ideas about the value of PFAL, and all chaos breaks loose. Instead of silencing me or shuffling me off to a closet, why not look at your own house and see if you are throwing out the PFAL baby with the bathwater. You once got all caught up and zealous for a movement that turned from mindful to mindless. So ask yourselves, how immune are you to getting mindlessly caught up in something, today, that turns from mindful to mindless? If you were building a mindful model of what went wrong at TWI, it would not collapse at my mere posting.

I think you mean I misAPPLIED Psalm 12:6 But that is only if PFAL (collaterals) are not from God. And, again, if PFAL is not from God, then I am in a rut. Good thing I saved those 3 rut links, in case I'm wrong.