TARVO

[Yanniru]

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

[tkorrovi]

I sent you email.

[tkorrovi]

> 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
support.proboards.com/?board=general
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.

[tkorrovi]

What I think:

1. BEC exists in near absolute zero temperatures, but they may exist longer time in higher temperatures if they are very small (a size of a particle).

2. A form of quantum consciousness may appear in BEC first because nonlocality and second because all particles occupy the whole space and therefore everything depends not so much on space, but connections. If these were absolutely dynamic systems then there are important only the connections between the points, not the location of the points, and patterns of the connections of the points. In general in such artificial consciousness there is no space unless artificial consciousness simulates a space.

3. I think that the best evidence of quantum effects of consciousness is the influence to random event generators of pear project. The experiment with thousands of people gave result that the frequency changed in desired direction 5% more than if it was random. www.princeton.edu/~pear/finalcap.pdf This is a very long document, so wait a while before the download ends.

4. What Scaruffy said:

"Bose-Einstein condensates is that they seem to possess a primitive form of free will" What kinf of?

"When digestion of food generates enough energy, all molecular dipoles line up and oscillate in a perfectly coordinate manner, which results in a Bose-Einstein condensate." Really, is it proved?

"This implies that the wave function tends to collapse towards Bose-Einstein condensates" I rather think that wave function and any equation just cannot describe everything because of the loops like in C program what cannot be described in Gödel's formal system.

5. "In theory, this property can be exploited to convert axions into photons (radio/light/gamma-rays) throughthe use of intense electric and/or magnetic fields." If this can be done, then it may give some possibility to study the nature of the processes in BECs and how the things form there.

[Yanniru]

1. BEC exists in near absolute zero temperatures, but they may exist longer time in higher temperatures if they are very small (a size of a particle).

***Axion BECs because each particle has so little mass (1/1,000,000,000 electron mass) that they are thought to be a BEC even at solar temperatures. It's because the wave function spread is global in size and the room temperature velocities are relatively small- even solar surface temperature velocities***

2. A form of quantum consciousness may appear in BEC first because nonlocality and second because all particles occupy the whole space and therefore everything depends not so much on space, but connections. If these were absolutely dynamic systems then there are important only the connections between the points, not the location of the points, and patterns of the connections of the points. In general in such artificial consciousness there is no space unless artificial consciousness simulates a space.

***Agreed. The whole globe is an axion BEC. That's the connection to Bohm's pilot waves. They are the integrating factor in the physical or rather detectable brain processes***

3. I think that the best evidence of quantum effects of consciousness is the influence to random event generators of pear project. The experiment with thousands of people gave result that the frequency changed in desired direction 5% more than if it was random. www.princeton.edu/~pear/finalcap.pdf This is a very long document, so wait a while before the download ends.

***I'll check this later. Not sure why it should demonstrate a quantum effect.***

4. What Scaruffy said:

"Bose-Einstein condensates is that they seem to possess a primitive form of free will" What kinf of?

***I do not know what he meant. Maybe like super fluids can defy gravity and climb walls***

"When digestion of food generates enough energy, all molecular dipoles line up and oscillate in a perfectly coordinate manner, which results in a Bose-Einstein condensate." Really, is it proved?

***This is Froelich's hypothesis. But I think he just meant the difference between sleep and waking. I do not recall discussing the digestion of food. Is that in my paper?***

"This implies that the wave function tends to collapse towards Bose-Einstein condensates" I rather think that wave function and any equation just cannot describe everything because of the loops like in C program what cannot be described in Gödel's formal system.

***I do not recall ever saying that. Actually in BECs the wave functions should not collapse for lack of friction. But the Goedel incompleteness theorem may be important here. There may be solutions that cannot be derived from the axioms, or even any equation, as you say. I did not realize that his effect can be achieved in programs with loops, self-referential loops I presume.

Since you something about this, I would like to try an idea on you. As I understand it, Goedel knew these solutions to be true because they are true in a larger system (where they can be derived) that subsums the smaller system where they cannot be derived from axioms, or first principles. My idea is then if there exists in nature a system (presumably supernatural) that subsums or incorporates the physical world, then communication may be possible from the larger to the smaller system.

It seems that if it were possible, and if we can find a programs that subsums a looping C program, perhaps your AC program, then such communication could be verified by simulation. hat do you think***

5. "In theory, this property can be exploited to convert axions into photons (radio/light/gamma-rays) throughthe use of intense electric and/or magnetic fields." If this can be done, then it may give some possibility to study the nature of the processes in BECs and how the things form there.

***So far the experiments are negative. Axions have not been detected that way, or any other way. For that matter, I am not at all sure that Dark Matter is composed of axions. Recently there has been many exotic proposals for Dark Matter. However, what I like about the axion or some other particle of similarly tiny mass is that it has all the right properties to be a supernatural medium, frictionless and completely non-local. It at least has the right properties for consciousness.

Thank you for being rather supportive. You obviously read the paper carefully. You could copy this discussion over to your site if you deem it worthy. I think I can give you permission for that despite copyright issues, as the message below implies.



Sincerely

Richard

[tkorrovi]

Try to write *any* loop in Gödel's formal system homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/Godel-SimpleRefutation.html but any continuous process contains a loop.

Are there any dimensions inside BECs at all? I thought about some silly methaphysics once, just why everything exists at first place. Say somewhere in the beginning, was it probable that there were only 3 dimensions, more probable that there were limitless number of dimensions. And then was it probable that all the space was homogeneous, rather it was thick in some places and rare in others. But if there were limitless number of dimensions then I think a system, points connected to each other, models it the best, or what else there can be. And it's not probable that it stands still, so the structure has to change, well and all the rest comes from that. This was just for me a way to imagine it, not more important than that.

[tkorrovi]

Any state machine like computer what implements continuous process needs a loop (like a loop in algorithm) in Gödel's formal system because such state machine cannot be implemented as a function of time or by calculating just one state. Most changing structures can only be implemented in the computer, equations cannot model them other than iterative equations what implement computer or similar state machine. It is that for saying anything it's necessary to partly refute the Gödel's theorem, in spite that the argument of non-computability is obviously wrong considering a huge number of programs written in so many years, and not yet anybody didn't find a single case when something couldn't be programmed because of non-computability. But I still think that Gödel's theorem is useful to show the limits of (non-iterative) equations.

Gödel's original paper: home.ddc.net/ygg/etext/godel/godel3.htm

This is how the reference of series of basic signs is calculated "Furthermore, variables of type n are given numbers of the form pn (where p is a prime number > 13). Hence, to every finite series of basic signs (and so also to every formula) there corresponds, one-to-one, a finite series of natural numbers. These finite series of natural numbers we now map (again in one-to-one correspondence) on to natural numbers, by letting the number 2n1, 3n2 … pknk correspond to the series n1, n2, … nk, where pk denotes the k-th prime number in order of magnitude. A natural number is thereby assigned in one-to-one correspondence, not only to every basic sign, but also to every finite series of such signs. We denote by F(a) the number corresponding to the basic sign or series of basic signs a." Now to have a loop, we supposed to have such reference in the formula, but then the reference to the formula would be bigger than that reference and there's supposed to be no way how we can write such loop in Gödel's formal system.