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

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

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Tarvo on November 13, 2003 19:16:38 UTC

> Anyway, I found the following statements interesting: "For the system to become stable it must be learned something or developed to certain level."

This is the only way how it became stable when I tested it. At first there is just a very simple system, just the i/o knots must be connected to each other, this possibly cannot be stable. So far I found only one small stable system, but this just switch between two states and doesn't develop.

> "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.

Cannot say anything of whether it can model physics in some way or not, but the dimension has somewhat different meaning there, it is a maximum number of connections. Considering analogy with space, nonlocal connections would add to 3 dimensions, don't know whether this 26 limits the number of nonlocal connections though. This is not physical, but a very theoretical system, there is no space, only points connected to each other.

> It then says that 100s of neurons must be capable of coupling to get a stable system.

Not neurons, this system may only be what happens inside the neuron (or perhaps as not a serious suggestion in microtubule structures in bacteria), so what we need are knots, not neurons. Knot is statically just a point connected to other points, whatever this physically may be. Absolutely dynamic systems come only from the condition that the system is points connected to each other and the structure of the system must change.

> BTW- please explain how collapse happens. Does it just break into unconnected pieces?

Collapse happens so that more knots are deleted than created, until there would be nothing left. This is because a lot of small systems cannot be stable, just no solution would be formed what keeps the system stable.

> 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.

Human consciousness is very developed system, this is most likely why it is all the time stable.

> But AC is catchy and deserves to be used.

One problem is that as it shows, whenever we try to define intelligence, we most likely overdefine. Also AC estableshes criteria for strong AI and so separates it from weak AI and AI in general. In spite that AI people say that their field includes all strong AI, it often happens that anything concerning strong AI would be disputed from the positions of weak AI (or behaviourism). And their general position is that any strong AI has not been created yet, and it cannot be created yet, and maybe even cannot be discussed yet. AC is a way to start to understand consciousness so that we first model systems what are theoretically cabable of achieving all (this all makes it strong) abilities of consciousness what we know.

> 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.

Thanks. The question is what means valid here. There is not yet any physical evidence that similar process happens somewhere or in some form in the neuron, but it may have importance in that sense if we can consider it as an approximation of these processes.

> Please put some more results on your site. And please let me post there.

This is a proboards forum, the support for proboards forums is at
I am the administrator of the forum, but I cannot see the passwords, don't assign them and don't register the users at first, this is done by proboards. There may be several reasons: user name is case-sensitive, perhaps cookies are not on, or after you leave the board you remain logged in for a time you specify, so next time you try to log in, you are already there. But I read in the support forum that reassigning the password often helps. I can assign new password to you and send it to you by email. That after you can change it in your profile and I cannot see your new password. Please say if you want me to reassign your password, I then email it to you. Sorry for inconvenience, proboards forums are good in general, but I read in support forum that others had problems with registering as well.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 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