andrewcellini

Do you not know what a cellular automata is? To answer your question briefly, it's to make quantitative predictions.

Certainly, but you need a model and as I stated above for you to claim that the universe is a "kind of cellular automata" implies that the model to describe it will be mathematical.

When you make confident pronouncements about your knowledge such that you have a "theory of everything" without substantiating it with evidence or argument, you are being a crack pot. You should be encouraged by the criticism to better your arguments and to actually learn what mainstream science has discovered.

When you frame it like that it seems we've treated you horribly. Too bad things are not as you've described. "Nice" jab, though I hope you realize your "theory" will probably make no testable predictions without a model, and for you to declare that the universe is a "kind of cellular automata" implies a mathematical or computational model. FIFY Also this most undoubtedly unfounded. How would you know how he came to his personal philosophy? Were you there every step of the way? Did you read the unofficial biography of Strange?

How can you justify this claim? For an (anecdotal) example, I went to a Catholic school for most of my primary and secondary school years and I had to read and "reason" about the bible though I never really bought it (I just wanted to pass my religion classes). Would you consider that studying the religion? Or does this not count because I admittedly couldn't for the life of me believe that the book I was reading was true?

My personal research has concluded that an elephant never forgets.

I really don't know how you got that impression from this book. I mean you do realize selfishness is used as an analogy right?

He's exploiting a glitch in the matrix.

I would assume the first step is to figure out how to build a computer that "runs on water." Luckily that's in some sense been done

I did not mean to imply no model, i meant to imply a "fine tuned" model. Obviously there are reflexes, emotions, basic motor functions, sensory function etc. And Ed I see what you're saying by The oscillations occur in neurons whether or not they process input or produce output.. The example with reduced calcium potential of self sustaining oscillations. That is an interesting case and much different than ones i've read about previously (if only i didn't skim the article i referenced lol) but keep in mind that the state space for such a case has a limit cycle and the behavior is periodic which is qualitatively different from the behavior exhibited by a system with a strange attractor. from the article "The resting state and the oscillatory one of axons correspond to a stable equilibrium point and a stable limit cycle, respectively,"

Source? That isn't referenced in the article that I linked as I'm certain they're describing experiments with injected currents with in vitro neurons, and as I said they relate the changes in the phase portrait from something that is for example periodic to something strange to changes in frequency and amplitude of the signal and describe how that can be done. I just fail to see why the type of neuron or neurons stimulating the cell we're measuring the response of matters in the context of generating the response. Sure, though I'm not sure how mentioning spontaneous firing rate is relevant (if by oscillations you're referring to action potentials), afaik the dynamics of an in vitro neuron that isn't being given some input current does not give a periodic phase potrait (if that's what you meant by oscillations). The only part I would have to disagree is "produce output" as they simply do if they undergo an action potential, even if no one is around to listen or if it would make a difference on its own(bring a post synaptic cell above threshold). The article also shows other attractors than just chaotic ones, even the one characterizing a single spontaneous action potential (which happens to be a point).

They are certainly deterministic systems, but they're nonlinear, and there exist solutions for conductance based models like hodgkin huxley for which there are attractors as mundane as points to strange attractors, and these model observable behavior. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Chaos_in_neurons#Nonlinear_dynamics_in_nerve_membranes this article goes into measuring chaotic behavior and how frequency and amplitude of stimulus impact the behavior of the neuron. Edit: "what do you mean by chaotic" sensitive to their initial conditions in phase space

It could be that whatever values the parameters happen to take imply a sort of chaotic solution to whatever hypothetical function describes the brain, and thus it appears that it's acting randomly or unlike it was before.

I don't either, and there is reason to doubt it. If I can remember the name of it I'll post a paper I've posted before by Max Tegmark going over claims from Orch OR about the function of quantum decoherence and whether the brain acts like a quantum computer. Needless to say, I think it's reasonable to keep that option open as there could be other ways in which quantum mechanics could rear its ugly but useful head. Even Tegmark has inquired what it means for a computer as well as a conscious entity to be configuration of matter, and I'm fairly certain he extends it to quantum mechanics. I might post that one too. Edit: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9907009 and https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1219 respectively

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_errors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misattribution_of_memory http://science.sciencemag.org/content/341/6144/387 I don't know if that is a clear distinction; what seems to be clear is how error arises and is handled in the brain can be different from how computers currently do it. I don't believe anyone implied that (assuming your usage of neural net in the former was about real nets, ie brains), and for the latter part of your statement, well, I would hope they train the network because that's how you get it to for example find patterns. Human brains aren't given a model of reality, they make one, but it's clear that the process of learning, at the very least for forms of associative memory, is able to be modeled mathematically and is thus realizable in computers. This makes me wonder if ideas developed in AI regarding how networks learn, ideas like finding minima in some "energy function" akin to hopfield networks and boltzmann machines, have been incorporated into neuroscience. I haven't the faintest idea tbh, but such models have a physical feel. I could also see a problem if the brain uses such features of quantum physics for computational purposes, but that could be due to ignorance and lack of imagination on my part.

If we could abstract what the brain does (in terms of information processing) into an algorithm, then how could anything the brain does be inconsistent with said algorithm? Or do you mean to say that it does something unexpected, because that which we do not expect =/= inconsistency

So no comment on what you think time has to do with Cantor's argument?

"With time implicit in Cantor's constructive method" What?

so if i put two electrodes hooked up to a car battery in a cup of water, is that interaction conscious?

I think that one mind is mine Edit: also if anyone's interested, here's a copy of the paper the OP is talking about. http://www.fredalanwolf.com/myarticles/Bass_1.pdf

That's not how science works, and that's a really nice (read: lame) way to shift the burden of proof to those responding to your ideas.

A can't be the answer because it says codons, which refers to the base triplets in mRNA. and the anticodons bind to the corresponding codon on the mRNA, not the ribosome. I've personally not heard of B as a function of tRNA (and I can't find anything on it), but I'm pretty sure tRNA doesn't have anything to do with transcription (aside from being transcribed). and D is just wrong as tRNA are the necessary carriers of amino acids during translation in prokaryotes which obviously do not have a nucleus. So you're left with c. here's a nice animation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1eQNmtCCkw

which answer do you think it is and why?

If Strange were to offer up a personal anecdote it would contribute about as much to the conversation as yours, and I'm sure he's not referencing one. You can find near-death experiences consistent with all sorts of beliefs, and I don't know what use it would be know "exactly who" these people are. Do you also doubt that Hindus tell stories similar to yours but with different interpretations - those consistent with their religion - of the figures they perceive?

Does your son prefer the food to be particularly hot or cold? You could probably get away with a thermos if he wants them hot.