robotics : dreaming away on the job?

[abu afak]

There, that's better, that's a much better way to say it.

I don't recall saying you were, but you are responsible for the words you choose yes?

Right.

An untrue claim is an error of reasoning though not of personality.

A little, I learn new things every day, or I hope I do.

OK but what does this imply for human consciousness? How does a conscious system differ from an unconscious one? are there tests we can perform on a system to determine if it is conscious or not? We have the Turing test (I suppose) is there anything else?

When you say "there's a model of neurons as oscillators" do you mean they exhibit periodicity? As you know a periodic function can always be decomposed into a sum of sine functions, is fully described by that sum, so does the neuron model you refer to have that behavior?

It's one thing to be a creationist with the justification of using it to explain what we don't know.. yet: The Origin of the Universe or the first spark of life. {tho evidence points to natural abiogenesis. ie self-replicating non-living molecules)

It takes a whole different amount of blind denial/Idiocy (and religion) to be an anti-evolution creationist and deny Overwhelming EVIDENCE of more than 170 years.
We've had an explosion of new sciences in that period and all relevant ones help support Evo. Everything from Isotopic dating to DNA, and more.
(and still nothing in the wrong strata after millions of fossils found)

`

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

It's one thing to be a creationist with the justification of using it to explain what we don't know.. yet: The Origin of the Universe or the first spark of life. {tho evidence points to natural abiogenesis. ie self-replicating non-living molecules)

It takes a whole different amount of blind denial/Idiocy to be an anti-evolution creationist and deny Overwhelming EVIDENCE of more than 170 years.
We've had an explosion of new sciences in that period and all relevant ones help support Evo. Everything from Isotopic dating to DNA, and more.
(and still nothing in the wrong strata after millions of fossils found)

I must ask, are you disputing something I actually said or just expressing your general opinion?

 

[abu afak]

I must ask, are you disputing something I actually said or just expressing your general opinion?

the former, and I've already refuted it in quoting you previously. (such as your 'explosion' attempt) as well as another. my last was just a basically a repeat of a previous post to you. The few I bother responding to, that is. bye.


EDIT: note the whiff below of this poster who relies on semantic gymnastics to participate at all.
`

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

the former, and I've already refuted it in quoting you previously. (such as your 'explosion' attempt) as well as another. my last was just a basically a repeat of a previous post to you. The few I bother responding to, that is.

I doubt what you said qualifies as a refutation, more of a rebuttal.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Here's something most people have never seen, enjoy:

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Another, better vid

 

[scruffy]

When you say "there's a model of neurons as oscillators" do you mean they exhibit periodicity?

No.

As you probably know the Chua circuit is aperiodic. It never repeats.

As you know a periodic function can always be decomposed into some kind of trig function(s), so does the neuron model you refer to have that behavior?

The original version of the model did, because it was trying to explain Hodgkin-Huxley dynamics.

The newer version seeks to explain "spontaneous firing", which most neurons display in the .1-1 Hz range.

Some of them are regular, but many are not.

This one is pretty typical probably. You can see the triangular spectrum.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No.

As you probably know the Chua circuit is aperiodic. It never repeats.

Exactly so isn't in inappropriate to say they are oscillators?

The original version of the model did, because it was trying to explain Hodgkin-Huxley dynamics.

The newer version seeks to explain "spontaneous firing", which most neurons display in the .1-1 Hz range.

Some of them are regular, but many are not.

This one is pretty typical probably. You can see the triangular spectrum.

View attachment 997884

I recall reading about those LED artificial candles, the "flame" flickers quite realistically and that's because of chaotic behavior:

 

[scruffy]

Exactly so isn't in inappropriate to say they are oscillators?

No. Your understanding of oscillators needs to be expanded. The modern view is given by Aronov.

aronov oscillators theory - Google Search

www.google.com

I recall reading about those LED artificial candles, the "flame" flickers quite realistically and that's because of chaotic behavior:

Strange attractors are usually higher dimensional entities projected back down into a lower dimensional phase space. For example a small section of the Henon attractor closely resembles a Cantor set.

Strange Attractors - Chaos & Fractals

Chaos and Fractals

www.stsci.edu

The common element is the nonlinearity.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No. Your understanding of oscillators needs to be expanded. The modern view is given by Aronov.

aronov oscillators theory - Google Search

www.google.com

Not seeing much, not even a Wikipedia article about "Aronov oscillator" or anything, might you mean Andronow?

Strange attractors are usually higher dimensional entities projected back down into a lower dimensional phase space. For example a small section of the Henon attractor closely resembles a Cantor set.

Strange Attractors - Chaos & Fractals

Chaos and Fractals

www.stsci.edu

The common element is the nonlinearity.

 

[scruffy]

Not seeing much, not even a Wikipedia article about "Aronov oscillator" or anything, might you mean Andronow?

Yeah. One of those Russian guys.