zule

Graviphoton:about the things you have been writing, I agree to part, I disagree to a larger part, and there are subjects I simply don’t know about. But what I haven’t quite caught is what you want to say on this thread in a whole: You start the thread saying that consciousness can be fully explained through quantum mechanist. From that I understand that it can be scientifically explained. However, you say it’s impossible to create an artificial intelligence because part of the consciousness is metaphysic. I think that consciousness could be explained on a whole through the biochemistry, but we humans are not intelligent enough to explain our own mind, only a much more intelligent species could. Because our mind could be scientifically understood, it could be copied (by beings with a much more superior brain than ours) to create an artificial intelligence. I agree with you about the fact that the mind could be explained from different points of view. But if it can be explained scientifically, it’s a scientific subject, can or can’t be explained in other ways. So, you can’t say than an artificial consciousness is impossible to design because of the ability of explain the mind metaphisycally.

I start well, I don't even understand the title of your three principles:doh:. Why "pathology"? Having consciousness is a illness? What does the Binding Principle of Neurophysics state? Do you know who propossed it?

No one of the combinations you have written is well. Are you going to try all the possible ones? Wouldn't it be faster to look for the subject on a book or in the Internet?

A un-placebo would be the absence of placebo, and the placebo effect is always important, as much in the case of working treatment as in the case of not working.

Firstly, there are not wild animal races. I have never heart about lion races or wolf races. There are dog races, cat races, cow races, pig races… when we refer to these races, we are talking about a set of features that have been artificially selected for the man. Humans have crossed between themselves animals with certain desirable features to increase these ones. So, what we call “human races” doesn’t have anything to do with the remainder of races. Luckily, Hitler didn’t success on his goal. Besides, we also use the term “human race” to mean “all the humans”. On the other hand, the so called "human races" are some similar between them that I don't find any reason to be separated in races. I’m pretty sure that if an ET arrived at Earth without previously known anything about them, he wouldn’t relate a Chihuahua to a Saint Bernard, not even a German sheepdog to a greyhound. However, he will easily relate all the “human races” between them. I think that the diference between "human races" is ore psychological and/or cultural than real. And finally, the main issue: How would you explain that two “races” that have independently aroused, can reproduce between them? That wouldn’t be a coincidence. That would be a miracle.

Which are those facts?

I have always heard that males are unable to do two things at the same time, but females are able>. Perhaps you can discover the reason for that using your theory. Now, seriously, if that was true, how can a writer write with their left sidethe things he is imagining with his right one? How can a mathematician put on a paper what they are obtaining by their abstractions? How can we all function? I think that consciousness is mere biochemistry, I don’t know if you mean that by “theory stating that consciousness is only built up on electrical signals”, although biochemistry is much more than only electrical signals. And as I also think that biochemical reactions can be imitated by other chemical reactions, I believe than an artificial consciousness can be made. I am not saying we could, nowadays, build something that resembled very much to our consciousness. We know so little about it… I am not even saying we can some day build something equal to our consciousness. For doing that, we would have to understand the functioning of our brain perfectly; and that is impossible, because the only tool we have for this task is our own brain. And to understand something, we need a much more powerful tool than the aim of study. Summing up, I think that some day it would be possible to do “artificial consciousness" which resembled to our consciousness, but only a much more superior brain than ours could build a consciousness as the human one.

I am reminded of the tv series "Doctor Who". Those drawings are very suitable to appear in that series.

We know very little about the mind, so we have not enough data to try and do a mathematical approximation about its working. I’m sorry to disappoint you, but I neither think that we get to know enough about the mind during your lifetime to be able to create a mathematical model. Speaking about the mind as the mere object capable of representing dimensions is for me almost a sacrilege.

In fact, it’s mainly affected by healthy living bacteria, although colour also changes due to dead and damaged bacteria. Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS), not only harm DNA, but also oxidize other molecules as polydesaturated fatty acids and amino acids. The oxygen comes fro the air. I think that you not only would have to reduce the number of bacteria, but you also would have to eliminate thepreviously produced metabolites.

I have a "few" doubts about your words I assume you are not talking about economy, so perhaps you mean to use a program which guesses the phenotype which would be provided by certain genes. I don’t see it very difficult, but I don’t know about informatics, so I have no idea if this could be done with unitary or binary operators. Reading this, I suppose I haven’t understood anything of the previous sentences, because I don’t think that it is necessary for determining a phenotype to complicate looking for position and time. I think we are now talking about determining the actions of proteins. Yes, probably a computer program would help, all the help is welcome. What do you mean by chemical movement? How does it relate to the OP? I don’t know what “QM” stands for, but what are you going to measure the electronic density of? How would you aply this theory to the genome or whatever you want to get? Why? How does it relate to the OP? Now, are you talking about Astronomy? Spectrum? I am definitively lost. What do you want to use the unitary operators for?

I always notice that people of Arts try to write complicating the easy things, while people of Science try to simplify the difficult. Could you please be a little more of a science person? Perhaps you are simply asking about this http://athena.bioc.uvic.ca/techDoc/nap

There are people who are born blind, so they have never seen any colour. Some of them have their view recuperated and they get to differentiate the colours, but they don’t go crazy for that. In fact, when we are born, we have never seen any colour previously and we don’t get crazy when we start to see them (at least that you consider that all humans are insane, which would be a good theory).

I don’t know about physics, but by logic, I understand that something moves slower if it has to counteract the effects of a greater gravity (at least that the movement direction is the same as tha gravity aceleration one). But the fact that the object moves slower, doesn’t mean that the time passes slower.

So, does our brain have any usefulness? Or could we just remove it and rely on esoteric ways of thinking instead?

Here you are some pictures. http://web.educastur.princast.es/proyectos/biogeo_ov/2BCH/B2_CELULA/t24_SIS_MEMB/informacion.htm http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ret%C3%ADculo_endoplasm%C3%A1tico_rugoso http://ns.ulatina.ac.cr/~carugaga/biolgen/re.htm http://enciclopedia.us.es/index.php/Aparato_de_Golgi In some of the pictures, you have numbers and below, a text in Spanish which say what each number corresponds to. I think the names are very similar to the ones in English, but you can ask if you don’t understand something.

I am currently reading a novel entitled “The curious incident of the dog in the night-time”, by Mark Haddon. The author was working with autistic children, and he writes the novel from the point of view of one of them. Thank you to this novel, I have gotten to know something about how an autistic person sees the world, how he feels about the “normal” people. Besides, the book is very entertaining, so, I recommend its reading.

I have really liked your video and I hope that you soon load more experiments in your site. At this moment, I don’t think about any idea for your new educational videos. But if something comes to my mind, I will tell you.

I think that every help is welcome, and if she feels which having that bird will help her to give up smoking, it actually will help. I used to smoke three cigarette packets a day, I was smoking for seventeen years and I got to give up it. Although I love very much Camilo (the parrot who is in my avatar), I have to admit that he wasn’t the main reason for me to give up smoking, but thinking about harming him with the smoke helped. So, instead worrying thinking about the name that the psychology would give to your wife’s idea, why don’t you hurry to buy her the bird? I don’t know if you and your wife would like to increase your family:eyebrow:, but my main reason to give up smoking was that I wanted to have a baby. Now, I only have to find a father

It always happens to me: Instead failing in the difficult taxes, I make the most stupid mistakes:doh:. So, I think the solution could be: [hide]T( ): put the number the other way around. T(10)=01 T(5)=5 T(6)=6 T(720)=027 So, the solution will be ?=101 Now, I am going to go over the calculation to test if I have made another mistake.[/hide]

I think that when you say “charge” you are referring to action potential. The action potential doesn’t have to begin at the dendrite. It can be transmitted directly from the axon of the neuron before as an electrical stimulus. But it can also arrive to the dendrite a chemical stimulus which will be transformed in an electrical in the dendrites and neuronal body. If this electrical stimulus is able to create an action potential, this one will travel along the axon. I believe that you are thinking that the ions are really moving forward (an ion that starts in the dendrite and arrives at the end of the axon). But the thing is not like that. What actually occurs is that the Na+ passes from the exterior to the inner of the neuron. This prompts an action potential in the little part of the membrane which the Na+ has gone through. The action potential produced in this little part of the membrane due to the pass of Na+ prompts the opening of Na+ channels in the neighbouring parts of the membrane. So, another little piece of membrane get depolarised, an action potential is started in that little piece of membrane and so on.

I am not sure about T( ), it’s a little strange function. But on the way I have guessed numbers and functions could be, it works: [hide] c=0; r=1; t=3; s=5 C( )= triangular numbers; S()= cube I don’t know if D( ) has a name, but it could be D(1)=1; D(2)= 1x2=2; D(3)= 1x2x3=6; D(4)= 1x2x3x4= 24 ; D(5)= 1x2x3x4x5=120…. My guess for T( ) would be: Addition of all the numbers that compose the whole figure raise to the power of the number of figures that are in the whole figure: T (1)= 1 to the power of one=1 T (10)= 1 to the power of two=1 T (15)= 6 to the power of two= 36 T(720)= 9 to the power of three= 27 With all this data, the solution would be ?=200[/hide]

When you talk about a fluid that flow I suppose you are speaking about water, because cells live in a watery medium. The water can’t stay into the membrane because water is very apolar and the inner o the membrane very polar. For that, they repel each other. On the other hand, besides the thickening, what the model of voltage-gated ion channels isn’t able to explain is the decrease in temperature. The temperature increase is already explained due to the pass of electrical charges.

[hide]I think that the water level will fall: The anchor have a density much higher than the boat. Not only the material the boat is made is much lighter than the one which the one is made the anchor. Also, because of its shape, part of the boat volume is air, decreasing still more the whole density. When the anchor is inside the boat, we can consider that it is part of the boat, increases the average density of the whole. The boat will sink deeper than without the anchor, displacing as much volume of water as volume of boat sinks. When the anchor is taken out of the boat and into the water, the volume of the part of the boat sunk will decrease, and so will do the volume of water displaced, falling the water level. It is true that the water level also will increase the same volume as the anchor has. But as the relation mass/volume is higher in the anchor than in the boat, the volume increase due to put the anchor into water will be smaller than the one due to have the anchor in the boat.[/hide]

I don’t know about batteries. But I think that instead electrons or protons, inside the battery can be moved ions. Ions are positive charged atoms and their movement can supply electrical power.