Neurocomp2003

Highfield is an eloquent writer and the HP series is a little nice light reading...look at all the other books I try to read. Its like picking up a Startrek or starwars sci book. But I'm not to big on those. and yes TENM is an enjoyable read as is SOTM the 2nd in the series but not a big fan of his conclusions...I believe we can simulate intelligence with what we have now...its just a more complex algorithm and not many have the willingness and the funding to do it. PLus most people simulate 1 function or sense and I think intelligence for a machine must come from 2 hearing/speech and vision.

There are several threads about what books you have been reading. But they deal with general or scifi. I would like to keep this thread to only science books(meaning no scifi). Anyhow So what is everyone reading...or would recommend in any field of science. Me...Just recently finished 1) a child development book called "Whats going on in there?" good easy to read and interesting for cognitive modeling 2) steve grands book "creation" also good for cognitive modeling 3) Gary Flake "Computationaly Beauty of Nature" Excellent book I wish i had this when I was going through university or even have it taught in university because my program structure sucked ass 4) C++ for game progrmaming nice read. Currently reading 1)"AI wisdom" 2)"the body Electric" good book with insite to researchers around the world 3)Krauss' Dark matter and greene's string theory... Has anyone read...and have opinions on these books 1)Greene's new book about time and space. 2)"New Kind of Science" Wolfram I really wanted to pick up this book but flipping through it seems a bit dry but the pics and his code is interesting 3) "nature vs nurture" by matt ridley 4) "Sync" strogatz 5) "science of harry potter" highfield...eloquent writer 6) "nurbs book" 7) "mind and the brain" Schwartz

now if you understand what i said in the previous post about 1) axis are cylindrical. 2) with uniformness would create circular planes-->cylindrical shape 3) accretion disks then here is how the "planar universe" results. OF course its not really a plane...just from all angles..the height is alot smaller than width and length. 1) there is a cylindrical axis through which many galaxies rotate around. Though of course they have their own local axis. 2) this rotation is not uniform ...local systems have own forces and not all the same size and shape.... therefore not truly cylindrical still circular though. 3) along this cylindrical axis there is a "center of universe" where i hesitate to say but gravity takes into effect. 4) now putting the centrifuge/accretion idea...we must focus on a circular plane C passing through the center perpendicular of course to the axis. [CENTRIFUGE]-> heavy galaxies move closer to the plane C and towards the center. Lighter elements usual can do anything based on where they started. REmember though not purely CENTRIFUGE...there are heavy galaxies that wander based on their initial start. [ACCRETION DISK]->the center of the axis can be seen as the joint of two centrifuge-like axis. The center acts as the sucker and as "it" rotates it sucks everything towards it and the plane. HEavier galaxies approach the plane frmo both sides either moving closer to the axis and then to the plane or to the plane and then to the axis. Search for accretion disks pics. Now of course there are forces keeping it frm collapsing to true planarity...local systems... BUt the uniform motion is towards the plane. Again like your asteroids you get some chaotic motion in what may seem as a stable system. post your email if you have any more questions. Or search on accretion disks.

I don't have my Astro text so i can't pick it up and right the 40 pages on this topic. If you can pic up the 150$ text Carroll and Ostlie that is the one i learned frmo. 1) only one tool...i wasn't sure if it was called a centrifuge The centrifuge is way to neat in its separation but the analogy is the same. 2) Yes there are "N" axis but 1 axis per system scale. eg. Earth has its own axis that its spins on...look a bit large it spins around an axis near the sun(i dont' think the sun axis is the center of the solar system) Look abit larger ...axis of the milky way ....even larger you get axis of many galaxies even larger you get axis of many many galaxies or some like to call it many universes. I hope you get the point 3) THIS AXIS IS A LINE KNOWN AS A CYLINDRICAL AXIS--> because if there was only axis forces it would create a cylinder ...now the spherical observation that you observe is actulally the axis rotating around in a higherscale axis... Therefore our universe is not cylindrical because of all the "local" systems having their own axis and causing nonuniform force interaction...or gravity as some i believe call it. BUt the cylindrical axis does play into the picture. 4) Circular Picture results because of the cylindrical axis. 5) Electron in chaotic form is based on our current equipment. However many believe that we cannot improve any further in our measurements...and the chaos comes frmo using the statistics in Quantum which I don't believe is end all in quantum 6) no idea about accretion disks? Well accretion disks are relatively planar, but of course they have height ....just the width and length is alot larger. Basically ina a binary star system one star over powers the other...sucking in whatever it does...now they are both rotating on their own axis and around teh systems axis.. However the one sucking stuff collects elements around its axis towards its center because of the rotation and gravity...this causes the centrifuge like effect(of course not the actual the centrifuge it self) 7) the chaotic motion of asteroids...can't rememebr the exact details..but it has to do with the asteroids initial state. I think it goes as follows, the asteriods are sort of wandering rocks...either they enter the system through external forces or they are pelted off fmro some other rocks in the system., the keiper belt and the other belt are actually quite stable...just teh rocks in side them are thrashed about. I hope you can see where i'm leading to...just this is taking long. I guess you can say like throwing rocks in a pond. 8) see next post

I think the term black hole came because of the term black body radiation(BBR). What would you like to call it? vacuum sucker?

ALL i gotta say is WOOHOO they are offering MSc in Game development!!!!!!

maybe its a created sensation in your brain or maybe your actulally doing it which means you can sort of control your nerves...like twitching an ear or a manbreast. Look for this book in a unversity near by Eric Kandel...i think its called Neuroscience but search for the author...its "gods" gift to neuroscience students

its all theoretical but what jakiri posted is what current understanding tells us

its sort of similar to the idea of teh centrifuge or what ever its called...the bio tool that segments the heavy from the small. The local universe is still 3-D but as it rotates locally around its cylindrical axis...without getting into the mathematics of it...the result is a relatively planar result. You'll need to pick up a 3rd yr+ astrophysics book to understand teh mathematics. But the idea is that the majority of the masses starts out around teh middle and when teh axis starts spinning ...1) it pulls closer to teh axis 2) it pulls closer to the normal middle plane of the axis. One iffy way to picture it is 2 centrifuges joined at the bottom. WIth gravity at the joint Another similar example is the binary star system with accretion disks.

i think the only positive solutions are (x,y) = (t,t) and (x,y) = (2,4)=(4,2)

entrapment

the only problem with twin studies..is that most are born in the same womb. and have the same parents growing up. but I know of studies out there that do study twins that grow up apart. I do not remmeber the results but with clone studies youcan attempt to control the type of parent(class/culture) WIth clones you can 1) not have the same womb 2) same setting.

Enlight of the new studies in Korea. Do you think it is amoral to use cloning to study Nature vs Nuture?? If cloning was allowed I think this could bring new light onto the nature vs nuture debate. 1) We could really test how much does a fetus experience in the womb. 2) We can place them all around the world, in different cultures, different social classes, different eating habits etc. I personally side with 80-90% nuture and 20-10% Nature and I think this would help greatly. What do you guys think

playa

hitmen

donkey

pick up a standard chem book

acid...when you on acid its like your listening to jazz. anyhoo leaves->exits

what do you wanna know about the sch ..metric. Or other metrics?

ummm C can do graphics too. THere are alot of graphics packages out there for C hence CG. VB,VC++? I'd say C then you can branch off to either. You can always try to learn C and C++ together. C for the basic concepts and stuff of file loading/memory/algorithms/ but then move on to C++: STL which is basically "library" that makes all the algorithms for you so you don't have to start from scratch. The SAMS C and C++ books are great to learn. THe only reason i see to use VB is the GUI environment though I believe VC++ has now made it ez. But again as people have stated what do you need to do ios the biggest question GRAPHICS/VR/Simulations without math-> C/C++ SImulations with intense math-> FORTRAN/MATLAB/MAPLE/MATHEMATICA there is always the mixed option...which is to code your respective algorithms in the language of your choice and try to port it to a uniform platform of your choice but this is the hardest option...i'm still trying to figure out how to work matlab and C++ together ....matlab for its matrices and C++ fo the graphics

I suggest spatial navigation...because it is an awesome topic. Navigation by landmarks...90degrees vs 45 degrees...global vs local. Inside vs outside...there is an entire large literature to follow. (it was my supposed thesis topic before I dropped it because i needed more advanced c++ coding) Especially those that use VR...Also studies found in infants and in cab drivers Find papers by http://www.idealibary.com look for profs like neil burgess,sue becker(my thesis prof) mallot, bunch of french people i can't remmeber, trullier, hongjin sun(one of my profs), people frmo UCL...O'keefe, there's a lady...damn i can't remmeber her name. I got 5 stacks of paper on the topic so you should be able to find something

"the particle adventure" is to basic...i went through it in 2-3 hours. i need something more complex. I've been trying to find papers. esp. on xxx.lanl.gov.

"einstein rosen bridge" was the name used before wormholes was coined by Kip thorne or John wheeler. It is the link between 2 black holes or 1 black hole 1 white hole. BLack hole of course "sucks everything in" while the white hole "lets everything out" Of course 2 black holes linked would be useless but it is a solution to the field equations. The problem with the white hole is that (as the solutions go) if ever it existed it would produce an energy so great that it would form an energy barrier ring around the singularity/ring thus trapping the traveller inside the white hole. I won't get into the physics of the barrier. One other solution is thtat the white hole would be not be sustainable because of this barrier and would just collapse. Either way it is all mathematical and has yet been observed of course. FUN WITH MATH. If you would like to find more about wormholes --> xxx.lanl.gov (los alamos nat'l lab) is a good source of papers. It helped me well on my paper of wormholes and time travel. And it describe a bit about negative energy.

yes thats what i'd like to know...is the original post refereing to sides as 1) EDGES 2) SURFACES? solid sphere has no edge but one surface triangle has 3 edges and 2 surfaces

some of the stuff is from mathematical observations not actual observers but i believe electrons can travel only 1/10 c. And through the mathematics we assume that mass cannot go at c but i don't think we've ever experimentally shown it. And tachyons are actuallly a real physics term??