invert_nexus

It could be a water tower. I'm not sure about the scale though. It does look like it might be too big for that. And it has some weird effects around the circumference...

Aww. Should have known that other thread would get deleted. Anyway. I'll repost my post from it in here. I'd like some answers from people that understand physics. The other forums I reference are short on knowledgeable physics people right now. So the following is a cut and paste from a now deleted thread (slightly modified): =========================================== Could somebody in the know about physics and these constants say something about this? Garry here is all over the net with this as well as other things... but lately he's been obsessed with these lists of constants. I've guessed over in another forum what he might have been on about (I won't get into that here) but it appears that I might have been wrong. It would now appear that he's trying to say that NIST has faulty entries on their website? I've searched around and it seems that all the listed constants are correct but maybe they got them from Nist!? Anyway, I'd just like to know if he is actually trying to make a point (I invited him to just say what he wanted to say over in the other place but he refused) or if he's just 'acting' weird for attention. I'm betting on the latter but could very easily be wrong. I'm not up on physics and so am not in a position to comment. So. Some help here? (I would be surprised if he hasn't posted these constants in a multitude of other threads down in your religious forum as well. Yeah. I know. Don't ask me what they have to do with religion and Garry's not talking. I made my guess and he won't confirm or deny.) Edit: I spent a bit of time going over his post history here. He seems to have actually said things more clearly here than in any other forum I've seen him ramble in. He's gone on about these constants for a far longer time than I've been aware. I thought it was a relatively recent transmutation of his psychosis, but it would seem that it's not so recent. His past references to these constants always seem to lead to gravitons, and I presume that his present scenario is likely no different. I think that he thinks that the unearthing of the Ark of the Covenant that he believes is buried beneath the heelstone of Stone Henge will release a surge of gravitons or something. You really have to wonder about people who fall prey to such strange beliefs. I wonder if he really believes it of if he's pretending? He's spent a long time on his 'quest' for it to be artifice. I wonder what his friends and family think of him? I wonder if they're scared of his irrationality? Anyway. I'd still appreciate if someone could identify if there is something erroneous about the listings of constants from the nist site. But I doubt if there is. I think he's just groping for attention.

Hmm. You have a point there. Neurons do fire once the firing threshold has been reached. On or off. With no real variations in the action potential (although the firing threshold does change as the neuron 'tires out'.) But, it is also analog in that the communications between neurons is through neurotransmitters and not action potential. The chemical messengers between cells is analog. And throw in glial cells regulating the neurotransmitter level in any given synapse even more (a new idea which is not wholly proven yet, but is certainly tantalizing in its evidence) and you have a whole spectrum of values rather than on or off. So. As has been said, the brain is complicated. It's sort of a hybrid creature. Digital and analog. Interesting.

No. With the Baldwin Effect traits are passed on. Eventually. Take Vervet monkeys and their well known vocalizations. These vocalizations are genetically inspired. A vervet raised in captivity will make these calls under the proper conditions without needing to be taught them. But, they do need to be taught to refine their technique. The hawk call, for instance, might be used erroneously anytime anything is seen above the monkey. It takes experience to hone that down so that only the proper stimulus produces the proper effect. But, for this behavior to have become instilled into the genetic material of the monkey, it needed to be selected for. Those monkeys that didn't make the proper calls were culled from the population. While those who did make the call were selected for. Over time this solidifies behavior genetically. You have to look at it as a series of small changes. Every behavior of an animal is based on some form of genetic trait at least in some small way. A predilection for behaving one way as opposed to another. And as time goes on and the Baldwin Effect hones the genome this predilection becomes stronger and stronger. More genetically bound. Until it is no longer a predilection, but an instinct.

Greetings, apendrapew. Yes. I've been in here a little bit. But not much. I don't like the limitations of speech evinced in this environment. If you know what I'm saying. (No. Really. Nice place. Just not my place. Take no offense, people.) As to Sciforums, google it and you will find something. A treasure hunt, perchance. And as to the problems, I have received an email from Dave explaining what happened. Apparently, he had problems with his hosting company and they killed the database a day before he was going to leave for North Africa on vacation and so he's been unable to do anything about it. He didn't say so explicitly, but I assume the database will be repaired when he returns. Sometime around the end of May. Hopefully the threads remain.

Uncool, So. You're a determinist then? Did you read those links to Lucas's arguments against determinism, by any chance? And what of chaos theory? And quantum theory? The brain is nothing like a computer. A computer is digital. The brain is analog. I'm a believer that a brain couldn't be modeled efficiently by any system less complex than itself. Brain-like behavior could be implemented (think Chinese Room and/or black box) but it would not be needful to model the brain precisely. The brain is a work of neurons and neurotransmitters. Action potentials and ion channels. The brain is the result of its medium and it works because of it. To try to implement its function precisely in another medium (electronics) would entail certain translations of form that might easily invalidate that structure. You should utilize your medium for its benefits and limitations. Flesh and circuitry are not the same and it would be foolish to treat them as such. Dna Mauro, By a similar token, emotions are an end product of various processes. They are a motivational factor for more complex behaviors. They can be simulated by various means. Think of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and their "Genuine People Personalities." The first developed was boredom. Once they switched from using a herring sandwich (if memory serves) the rest followed in quick succession. Colin the euphoric robot comes to mind. The point where emotion takes on a new tinge... a more human tinge... is in the interpretational process. And it is here that that the elusive factor of 'consciousness' (human consciousness... I'm not going to get into the problems of nomenclature right now) lies. Heh. Lies. That's what the interpretive mechanism is adept at. Lying. Telling stories. Explaining. Rationalizing. When you can make a machine that lies in order to explain its functioning in the absence of knowledge of that functioning, then you'll be close to 'it'. When you can make a computer that seeks meaning and isomorphisms in the products of its senses, then you'll be on the road to awareness. Self-awareness. When you've designed a machine that can revel in contradictions and explain them away with a wink and a nod, then you'll be approaching human. And not until then can we say that the difference between brain and computer is being bridged.

Yes and no. I'm far from being a herpetologist or a crocodile expert, but I have seen documentaries showing some limited maternal behavior after hatching. For instance, they gather the hatchlings up in their mouth to carry them to the water. For a crocodile who bites reflexively from pressure on the inside of the mouth, this is a pretty amazing feat. And they also allow them to share the same water for a time after hatching as well. Yes. It's not anywhere near the level of mammalian parental care. But it is something. I am sure that there are other examples as well, but my sleep-deprived brain can't clear the headnoise enough at the moment to think of any concrete examples. Which is why I mentioned Baldwinian Evolution. Look up the Baldwin Effect. Behavior over time tends to solidy genetically. It doesn't happen in a single or few generations, but it does happen.

That's how many people who have joined the forum and given you as a referral to why they joined.

I would suggest that you are most likely respected less now after posting a "do you like me" thread. Maybe that's just me. Try a self-banishment poll. That's always a good way of finding out.

Hint: Gaia=nature. That was tough. I understand your confusion.

Callipygous, I repeat. For deaf ears. Read my response to her. It's only a click away. It says, very well, what strawman arguments she's made. Why should I repeat them? If you insist I will repost them for your benefit but I don't see the point as you will most likely just ignore them anyway if your present actions are any judge of future actions. Not really. And if that's all you got out of it, then I've obviously been wasting my time. Which I'm no longer going to do. That's not very surprising. Lance, And this doesn't surprise me either. Such a pity. The eyes. The ears. But they see only echoes of the vast stir of conscience within. So limited they are. These beings of heightened morality Pity. I wouldn't be surprised. Lay off those drugs and maybe your reading comprehension will improve. Pray that it's not too late. Obnoxious, Your reading skills are also excellent then. Yes. She's going to be banned soon. Uh oh. I said it this time. Do I still drink or are you supposed to drink this time? Syphill, You make many excellent points. You also make points that I would dispute. However, the conversation in this thread is pretty much over. You're going to be banned shortly. And who knows, I may follow because I'm now emotionally connected to a troll in their minds. Who knows? Anyway. Maybe we can continue this conversation elsewhere where people actually read the words rather than hem and haw about their emotional complaints. Game?

Aye. We do suffer from our problems, but they are not of the same type. Not infinite loops. An infinite loop would not be suicide. It would be nothing. It would be nothing. You could say that there are instances of psychosis (catatonia, hysterical paralysis, Parkinson's disease as in the movie Awakenings, and others) that could be seen as a sort of infinite loop. But it's not really. It's brain damage. Not a problem with the system itself. This is a very difficult concept to talk about. And I'm no math expert which is where it's illustrated most fully so I lose a lot in my interpretation of the explanations. But if you would care to know more, I can recommend a site or two. First, Godel, Escher, Bach is a most interesting book that delves into the topic. Also, John Lucas wrote an excellent series of papers on the subject you might find some interest in. Here's a site where both his articles and those rebutting him are gathered together. And here's his home page. It's really some slippery stuff to get your mind around, but very interesting. Also, Turing was working along similar lines as Godel when he come up with his Halting Problem. I highly recommend GEB (Godel, Escher, Bach). It's a long read but one of the most intelligent and imaginative books I've ever read. Truly worth the read.

That's definitely one of the problems, but not the only one. And not even the most limiting. A huge problem with 'mimicking' the human brain is that no one understands how the human brain does what it does. We're on the verge of a huge leap in understanding, but at the moment (and for years to come... maybe) we are infants in our knowledge. However, instead of trying to mimick the brain perfectly, they can instead focus on end results and allow the middle layers to take care of themselves. One of the largest problems, I tend to believe, is that which is illustrated by Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem. Computers are the quintessence of formal systems and as such are bound to get caught in endless loops of logic. Humans (and other thinking creatures) are informal systems which can exit the loop when they wish. No blue screens of death for humans.

Yes. And? I've already conceded that. Although 'incredibly' is a relative term. *Edit to add* My 'and...' was in the post. You know. The part right after the part you quoted? The part that you decided to overlook? You know. The various points? Pity. *End edit* You brought it up. Oh well. Meh. You're back on defensive mode. Pity. You were thinking there for a minute or two. Oh well. (Have you read my response to her? Do I need to repeat it?) Bah. This thread is back to going around in politic circles and refusing to get into any meat. Again. Pity. So be it. Your choice.