I just read all the discussion on your site. I'll reply here as I seem not to be able to post there. I get the msg "Error- someone by your name is already on board. Please use a different name"
Anyway, I found the following statements interesting:
"For the system to become stable it must be learned something or developed to certain level."
"If we have systems with less dimensions (as one would say maximum number of ways from the knot or node) then the system would collapse faster
and with less than 50 or so it shall collapse quite quickly"
The universe has at most 26 dimensions. So your model does not model physics.
It may model neurons. It then says that 100s of neurons must be capable of coupling to get a stable system. BTW- please explain how collapse happens. Does it just break into unconnected pieces?
So I gather that your system either becomes stable or collapses. Presumably if it is stable, it will then react to any new input with a different stable condition. My guess is that in human consciousness, the stable condition is reached almost immediately and what we experience as consciousness is a series of stable states.
On a different note, I do not object to use of the words AC, but I rather agree with Raphael that it is intelligence rather than consciousness. I base my judgement on the fact that you can test for IQ, but there is no human test for CQ (*Consciousness Quotient). But AC is catchy and deserves to be used.
Since AC is based on linear logic, I suspect that it could eventually model rational or logical thinking. If your model is valid for neurons, then it has already established a threshold level of complexity for rational thought, as you need 100s of knot connections to achieve stable configurations.
Please put some more results on your site. And please let me post there.