Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
TARVO

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Richard Ruquist on November 13, 2003 15:23:18 UTC

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.

Richard

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2021 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins