Sione

Oh' date=' for Chrissake. Your quote says WIRES! CURRENT-FRIKKIN' CARRYING CONDUCTORS! They are ELECTRICALLY NEUTRAL, as are the plasmas in a Z-pinch. They are NOT CHARGED BEAMS.

[/quote']

 

Pay attention. Free electron with velocity *is* electric current, electric plasma or discharge, just as is the one next to it and they attract with Lorentz force even when their relative velocity is close to none, wire, air or vacuum, does not matter.

 

CHARGED BEAMS ATTRACT EVEN MORE, do you want to know about it? Good that you closed the thread, who, in the whole wide world, would like to know about the fact that two single electrons attract just the same and even more so in vacuum, nice one. What do you imagine electrostatic potential, discharge and electric current is made of?

 

1.) Free electron laser, the same thing happens with electron beams in vacuum

 

2.) Electron plasma, is made only of free electrons and does the same thing

 

3.) Tesla coil in vacuum, discharge and free electrons do the same thing

 

4.) Electron beam welding, done in vacuum to prevent dispersion of the electron beam

 

MOD note: Moved after being posted in another thread. Note that posting elsewhere to avoid a closed thread is not permissible

which is an incredible review of the many experimental results that support general relativity. Saying that "every experimental result disagrees" means you need to provide evidence how every single experiment in the cited article above actually disagrees with GR.

 

LOL. Sorry if I was not clear. I meant to say that GR and the rest of physics is in disagreement with SR about the Lorentz force' date=' reference frames or both. Anyway, as for peer reviewed and actual science, here is a little bit of reality about Lorentz force and Biot-Savart law:

 

[b']Z-pinch[/b] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-pinch)

- "The Z-pinch is an application of the Lorentz force, in which a current-carrying conductor in a magnetic field experiences a force. One example of the Lorentz force is that, if two parallel wires are carrying current in the same direction, the wires will be pulled toward each other. The Z-pinch uses this effect: the entire plasma can be thought of as many current-carrying wires, all carrying current in the same direction, and they are all pulled toward each other by the Lorentz force, thus the plasma contracts."

 

 

DO YOU SEE THE ATTRACTION? Have you ever seen a lightning? That's just a warm up, ready for some more reality? - Various Z-pinch machines can be found in various institutions such as Sandia National Laboratories (USA), Ruhr University (Germany), Imperial College (United Kingdom), Ecole Polytechnique (France), and the Weizmann Institute of Science (Israel).

 

 

 

p.s.

Don't let me even start on GR, you don't wanna know.

Since I'm the only one who actually has insight about experiments, it is your theories and opinions that are speculative. Every single theory in modern and classical physics very much disagree with SR about this particular case, including GR, so what is all the fuss about?

 

 

The electrons are in the same frame of reference. They see no magnetic fields' date=' only electric fields. Any observer in another frame will see magnetic fields, because that's what happens in Maxwell's equations when you change frames under those conditions. However, the net repulsion does not change.

[/quote']

 

I think I already mentioned, here and in some other thread, Maxwell's equations do not include Lorentz force. We are only talking about magnetic fields of moving charges, Biot-Savart law and Lorentz force. The same force responsible for attraction of free electrons and lalalaaa...

 

 

What practical experiment confirms that speculation of yours? You only need to refer me to one practical study and actual experimental measurements based on which you form your conclusion.

 

 

- How many experiments do I need to show you before you accept it as reality, is three enough?

 

 

 

Sisyphus, D H, Mr Skeptic

 

You only need to refer me to just one practical study and actual experimental measurements based on which you form your conclusion. How many experiments do I need to show you before you accept it as reality, is three enough?

 

 

I mean it is not like I have some desire for you to believe me or to continue having an empty argument about it. I only tried to tell you this and teach you some cool stuff, but if you don't wanna know, that's fine, as far as I'm concerned you can delete this whole thread.

Reality and experimental measurements. That's all what matters now and everyone should check it for themselves, it's one click away.

 

 

No' date=' you offer a link that discusses electrons in a wire, and refuse to acknowledge that those are not the same conditions.

[/quote']

 

That I offered before as illustration.

 

Now, I offer you the whole WWW and every single practical experiment that is documented there, see for yourself, true or false:

 

- "Two free electrons moving parallel to each other feel NO magnetic fields due to each other."

The v in the Lorentz force is a relativistic velocity' date=' it is the velocity between the charge and where you are measuring the force, or the relative velocity.

 

The fact that magnetic fields exist at all in the Maxwell equations is a result of them being relativistic. The Lorentz transformations can be derived by JUST using what you call classical electromagnetism.

 

Your complete failure to understand or see this is baffling.

 

This has been experimentally proven countless times, the universe doesn't care what your opinion on it is.

[/quote']

 

Ok, you say my understanding failed and I appreciate your opinion.

 

Unfortunately, every single practical experiment does not really agree with you about this:

-"Two free electrons moving parallel to each other feel NO magnetic fields due to each other."

 

 

There is nothing much to understand here, above statement of yours is either confirmed by experiment or refuted, it is either true or false. To confirm your claim you only need to find one experimental study that proves your statement. On the other hand, I offer you all the rest of WWW that says otherwise.

1.) experiment showing "Two free electrons moving parallel to each other feel NO magnetic fields due to each other."

 

I don't have time for a decent search to find a good reference on this' date=' but I suspect a physics text might be the best course of action.

[/quote']

 

It is not about me believing claims of some particular theory. I took every possible course of action regarding all the theories and conclusion I have is confirmed by practical experiments. Your conclusion will, or will not, be confirmed once you too find the time to check experiments and see what reality thinks about it.

 

 

It would be in agreement with SR, electrodynamics, and quantum electrodynamics.

 

No, Electrodynamics or Classical Electromagnetism says clearly otherwise, it simply works even thought they use absolute reference frames, like Lorentz force and Biot-Savart law:

 

F= q(v x B)

B= v x q*k*d/r^2

 

 

Quantum Electrodynamics does not even have equation for this interaction, but if it had it would either agree with Classical equations or Quantum Mechanics, which confirms this via electron pairing due to spin and magnetic dipole moment.

 

 

I have not heard of anyone modeling electromagnetic interaction with relativistic equations.

 

The Maxwell equations and therefore the WHOLE of electrodynamics, as those 4 equations contain all of the information, are a completely relativistic theory...

 

1.) Maxwell equations ARE NOT "relativistic theory", but CLASSICAL Electromagnetism, using absolute reference frame like Lorentz force and Biot-Savart law:

 

F= q(v x B)

B= v x q*k*d/r^2

 

 

Maxwell's equations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations#Special_relativity

-"In electromagnetism, Maxwell's equations are a set of four partial differential equations... Individually, the equations are known as Gauss's law, Gauss's law for magnetism, Faraday's law of induction, and Ampère's law with Maxwell's correction.

 

These four equations, together with the Lorentz force law are the complete set of laws of classical electromagnetism."

 

 

2.) ...therefore, four Maxwell's equations ARE NOT WHOLE of electrodynamics, especially without including spin magnetic dipole moment and induced torque.

 

 

Find research groups working in the area they may explain their codes on their websites.

 

It is as if I'm high-school boy with homework and you are helping me sort out my confusion. I've been working for the last five years in this field, as a numerical modeling and analysis software engineer, so I know all about this stuff and if you too want to know about it, then it is you who should be doing some Googling and realize what I told you is not my imagination.

 

 

Don't believe me, of course not!

Just Google and see it for yourself, once you find the time.

I want to take a moment to clarify a few very important points' date=' that are clearly stated when you solve Maxwell's equations.

 

Electrons moving in wires are NOT the same as free electrons moving, wires have no net charge, electron beams do.

[/quote']

 

That might be true, and it could even be important.

 

However, from the point of view of Ampere's law, Lorentz force and Biot-Savart law, free electrons and electrons in wire behave quite alike, i can not see them, but experiments and those equations confirm each other, as far as I know.

 

 

Two free electrons moving parallel to each other feel NO magnetic fields due to each other.

 

Yes, that would be in agreement with SR and all I want is some experimental study that confirms it, because all I found points the other way.

 

 

Maxwell's electrodynamics was the first relativistic theory, he just didn't realise it at the time, and unluckily he was a very busy man and died quite young before he had a chance to realised just what he had done.

 

Any electromagnetism book will tell you these things, they are VERY well understood. There is no requirement for an absolute frame.

 

Maxwell's equations do not include Lorentz force.

 

I have not heard of anyone modeling electromagnetic interaction with relativistic equations. Why would anyone do that if more simple equations can do much better job. Is there any software that uses SR equations to model free electrons? I do not know of any, while on the other hand I know some that model electrons and magnetic fields interaction with classic equations.

 

 

1.) experiment showing "Two free electrons moving parallel to each other feel NO magnetic fields due to each other."

 

2.) anything about modeling magnetic interaction with SR that actually works and is not superfluous next to classic equations.

Well' date=' I seriously doubt searched the whole WWW, and your the reference you've cited repeatedly is entitled PARALLEL WIRES, which means that it doesn't apply to the circumstance of parallel beams of electrons (or protons). If you can't recognize that, there is no point in discussing this further.

[/quote']

 

I'm talking about two electrons, wire or no wire. What I was referring to is that every single article that talks about it, confirms it, so there is no need to copy/paste all the links there are, it will be enough if someone brings just one link that refutes it.

 

 

Observer, or any other reference frame, can move as they wish, but electrons do not care, they will feel magnetic attraction ONLY if they are actually moving(through what?), not if people run around while looking at electrons, that doesn't produce any magnetic fields around them.

 

 

Ok' date=' read this:

 

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/cla...el_el_mag.html

 

Bingo! There it is.

The mistake was in ignoring the relativistic Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction

[/quote']

 

What do you mean? That does not address the problem, that's about wires and Amperes law does the same thing with absolute reference frames. None of that can model magnetic field interaction of individual moving charges properly. Why would we use that in a first place? Nothing is missing from classic equations, they already work very well with absolute frames.

 

- Do you think magnetic field forms around electron flying past stationary neutron?

- Do you think magnetic field forms around stationary electron when neutron flies past it?

It's not a paradox. A magnetic field is an electrostatic field experienced in a reference frame in which the source has a nonzero velocity. In the reference frame in which that very same source has a velocity of zero' date=' there is no magnetic field.

[/quote']

 

Two electrons traveling next to each other, without any relative velocity, are in the SAME reference frame. The "observer" is second reference frame and everything else that is moving around is in its own reference frame. Only, magnetic fields do not care about particular people that observe them.

 

Observer, or any other reference frame, can move as they wish, but electrons do not care, they will feel magnetic attraction ONLY if they are actually moving(through what?), not if people run around while looking at electrons, that doesn't produce any magnetic fields around them.

 

 

Electrons do not care about reference frames, but the one frame they are in together since they are like one object if they keep the same distance. In that reference frame their relative velocity to each other is zero, but their relative velocity to something else obviously increases the strength of magnetic field. It is not observer because it does not work the other way around. Not really a paradox, only some bug in the theory.

 

 

Maxwell, Lorentz, Ampere... they were all life-long supporters of some kind of absolute reference frame, we use those equations and they work. On the other hand we have Einstein's "Lorentz transformations" that simply do not apply where they should be used - to model electromagnetic interaction. Look how Wikipedia describes it:

 

Lorentz transformation:

- "They form the mathematical basis for Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity. In 1905 Einstein derived them under the assumptions of the principle of relativity and the constancy of the speed of light in any inertial reference frame."

 

 

The point is, if there was absolute frame, that would not change results in SR at all, so I do not see what is the big deal about it since it could not be proven or refuted from SR point of view anyway, SR would be blind to it and everything will work just the same, except for magnetic fields that is.

Sheesh, what happened here?

 

V for Vendetta, eh? Dear V, I see you fiddled with my beautiful definition, very good. Everything seems to be defined now and the conclusion is that people just don't like to agree, eh?

Well, my intention was to have conversation where we could try to find conclusion together, not be convincing each other of anything, but sharing information about it. You seem confident in your current opinion and you do not seem to want to research the subject further, which is fine. Anyway, this is my reference, together with the whole WWW:

- "Strength of magnetic attraction between two electrons traveling without any relative velocity is proportional to their individual velocity."

 

Equations are clear about that: F= q(v x B); B= v x q*k*d/r^2

Experiments are clear about that: http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/education/tutorials/java/parallelwires/index.html

 

To me, this paradox seem very simple and obvious, easy to demonstrate, confirmed in experiments and equations in everyday life. I do not mean to claim or insist on any particular conclusion, nor to have empty argument, so I can continue to research it by myself and you are free to join and share with me how do you explain the paradox to yourself.

Great you have a video' date=' is that evidence, no, that is some guy talking on youtube, where are the genetic evidence, fossils, pictures, tests to prove he was abducted or at least some interesting results, anything scientific at all.

 

I mean really, you don't even post the papers that are supposed to claim that these genetic traits exist.

[/quote']

They talk about all that in the movie, they give reference to: genetic evidence, fossils, pictures, tests... Have you seen it?

 

don't accuse member of something people can clearly see they did not do. there wasn't a single bit of 'bad' language there at all. he only aknowledged that he is free to leave the discussion at his discretion but wishes to remain for the time being and reiterated his request for the proofs that you offered earlier in the thread.

If you were alien indeed you would understand' date=' anyway it is nice to see humans care for each other. To answer your question, they do talk about all that in the movie, they give reference to: genetic evidence, fossils, pictures, tests... Have you seen it?

 

I second his request for proof and will remind you that if you fail to provide said proof that you will be in breach of the rules to which you agreed when you signed up for this forum and may move the moderators to remove your right to continue this discussion and access these forums either temporarily or permanently.

 

You sound threatening, how sweet of you. Proof is in the pudding, evidence is in the videos, but I can not transfer that information telepathically, not to you, so you have to see it for yourself, if you care. If you prefer not to know, that's fine, don't be confused about my desire to have conversation with your disability to be friendly.

 

Youtube videos are not proof. I mean' date=' really. This a forum of science and you expect to get away with such an outrageous claim based on a handful of youtube videos documented some random guy's story?!. You're really not in Kansas anymore, and you need to realise that or else there will be moderator action against you.

[/quote']

Sure, feel free to ignore it, go on... as you were. Thanks for your input, I appreciate your efforts to restrict and censor discussion, it helps democracy, liberty and freedom of speech, have you considered a job in gestapo office?

 

Show me. Give me the journal citations' date=' and I'll look them up and post the full text for everyone here to read for themselves.

[/quote']

Everyone wants evidence, but is lazy to see it. Studies, papers and articles are referenced in those videos, it is interesting watch, what if I gave you 300 pages book? In any case, I do not require of you to believe anything, only if you wanna talk about it, in either case, it's fine!

 

This is a science forum' date=' following the scientific method. Threads are to be explained properly and evidence should be put forth upon request. Please go over the rules.

 

It is not a lecturing hall. It's a debate forum. You do not get to decide what you want or don't want to answer, and you do not get to treat people as if this is your own personal teaching facility.

 

This thread was added to 24-hour watch:

[/quote']

None of you seem to have read what was said in OP: -"I would like some opinions about it, because if everyone disregard this as nonsense without even looking at it, then it is not worth arguing about." Whats all this police business about? I do not feel like I want to talk to any of you actually, it is slightly insulting... moderately amusing, but not at all constructive. By the way, this is - Pseudoscience and Speculations - which means that I should be let in peace to speculate things even without any evidence or proof. I want to talk to people that HAVE SEEN the movie, if there is no person that cares to see it, that's fine! Relax.

Parallel wires and parallel beams are different' date=' which is why I asked the question. There is no electrostatic force in the wires in their rest frame, which is not true of a beam.

[/quote']

 

I see you are saying they are different, but equations work equally for both and experiments confirm equations. Anyway, what do you say in reality the velocity is relative to:

 

Free electrons:

a. velocity relative to field?

b. velocity relative to ....?

 

Electrons in wire:

a. velocity relative to field?

b. velocity relative to wires?

 

 

IIRC, you have to account for the length contraction of the beams, which increases their charge density and the electrostatic repulsion, and cancels the increased magnetic attraction. This effect is also present when you look at the wires. There is no preferred frame.

 

I accounted for everything and all the experiments confirm electron attraction increases due to "absolute velocity", not their relative velocity, since they attract more the faster they are going ALONG each other, in parallel, without any relative velocity. I agree, of course there is no "absolute velocity", it seems velocity is relative to "FixedStars", kind of like "Aether".

 

 

Can you give any reference, experiments or links that show otherwise?

I don't see the relativistic correction.

 

Me neither.

Wrong equation? Can you give us correct one?

 

 

What's worse that is exactly how real world experiments work.

 

It is not that I want you to accept existence of absolute reference frame, I want explanation too. I mean, the mere fact that we have ELECTRON BEAMS (cathode ray in TV), means that electrons can actually travel in parallel, for some time at least. We should know from practical electronics the amount of repulsion/attraction of electrons in such beam, would that prove it? Thought, experiment with two parallel wires is actually the same, only the existence of wires makes people think the velocity is relative to wires, but equations suggest that is not the case and experiments with free electrons should make that clear.

 

Parallel wires and magnetic fields:

http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/education/tutorials/java/parallelwires

1.) velocity relative to field ?

2.) velocity relative to wires" ?

 

 

So, what do we do, any idea? I have links that talk about electron attraction. This is not unknown at all, in chemistry and QM we accept for granted electron coupling, so it is not a question of whether electrons can attract, but whether that implies the existence of some 'absolute reference' frame or not.

I reckon in the future yeah' date=' when we are able to program them to appreciate what we feel and program them to make choices based on their emotionals. Anything we can program them to do, they will be able to perform it. If we can't, they can't.

[/quote']

 

You practically said we will be able to program it, once we are able to program it. The meaning of your sentence is my point. To know something is to DEFINE something, to be able to describe all the properties, especially MECHANICS of it, if you want to model mechanics of it. Word "simulation" means "to model mechanics of something".

 

Why future, why not now? We can model it, simulate it, AS SOON as we DEFINE it. Since I did define it, I already did simulate it, and I'm telling you it works. Future is now, and I'm telling you HOW it works, ok? Do you not understand or do you not believe?

 

 

 

Mokele,

 

I told you my definitions are perfect and they do work. Perhaps, your dictionary is better than mine? This is mine - http://www.dictionary.com - what's yours? Why are you arguing instead to share information and work TOGETHER? Let me try to explain it again...

 

 

1.) Feeling = brain input = sensation

Are you saying "feeling" IS NOT "brain input" IS NOT "sensation", what you call "stimuli"?

 

feel⋅ing

1. the function or the power of perceiving by touch.

2. physical sensation not connected with sight, hearing, taste, or smell.

 

stim⋅u⋅lus

1. something that incites to action or exertion or quickens action, feeling, thought, etc.

2. Physiology, Medicine/Medical. something that excites an organism or part to functional activity.

 

 

 

2.)Thought = brain output = cognition

Are you saying "thought" IS NOT "brain output" IS NOT "cognition"?

 

thought

1. the product of mental activity; that which one thinks: a body of thought.

2. a single act or product of thinking; idea or notion: to collect one's thoughts.

 

cog·ni·tion

1. the mental process of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment.

2. that which comes to be known, as through perception, reasoning, or intuition; knowledge.

 

Now, look back at "stimuli" and you will see how 'output' (thought) is also the part of 'input' in the same time: -"that incites to action or exertion or quickens action, feeling, thought, etc."

 

 

 

3.) Emotion = acquired feeling = previously felt

Are you saying "emotion" IS NOT "memorized feeling" IS NOT "acquired input"?

 

emo·tion

1. the affective aspect of consciousness; a state of feeling.

2. a psychic and physical reaction subjectively experienced as feeling and physiologically involving changes that prepare the body for action.

1. a mental state that arises spontaneously rather than consciously and is often accompanied by physiological changes; a feeling.

2. a state of mental agitation or disturbance; mental imprint or image.

 

 

 

4.) Instinct = genetic/acquired memory based reaction

Are you saying "instinct" IS NOT "reaction based on genetic or memorized input" IS NOT "trained stimuli reaction/response without thinking"?

 

in·stinct

1. an inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason.

2. behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level.

1. an inherited tendency of an organism to behave in reaction to its environment and purpose of fulfilling a specific need.

 

Just like a SHAPE MEMORY ALLOY that can INHERIT some shape i.e. MEMORIZE it, and later react accordingly. This is how you think mind works anyway, like spring based wrist-watch... even thought it is obviously electrical. Note the word PURPOSE in above definition, it is the key to defining what is "intelligence", and automatically, what is not, like instinct or emotional reaction. Did you know "consciousness" has the same units as modem speed, "thought" (information) can be measured in Bytes and that "intelligence" is 'rate of success', can be both positive and negative?

 

 

Thought = information output, Byte

Emotion = memorized input(felt), Byte

 

Consciousness = produced output, Byte/Sec

 

 

Instinct = emotion biased physical reaction/purpose, (+/- %)/Sec

Intelligence = thought biased physical reaction/purpose, (+/- %)/Sec

 

 

You cannot simply make up new meanings for words in order to prove a point. That's like if I 'proved' turtles are the fastest land animals by re-classifying the cheetah as a type of turtle.

 

I was not proving anything.

 

I was asking you for the correct definition.

 

There is no more points I need to make, I made my point.

 

I did not make up any meanings, the meanings are in dictionaries and encyclopedias. Your definitions seem to be wrong or you failed to understand them. Why don't you just look it up, pick your favorite encyclopedia and check it, then you may realize, or at least you might be able to copy/past what you think is the correct definition. You always have to start from somewhere, even if it is completely wrong we now know what needs to be defined. You offer no better definition, you do not point what and how to improve and what is actually wrong, your comment is emotional rather than rational, it was unpredictable.

 

YOU SAID:

-"Emotions, however, are simple. They're literally nothing more than cognitive reflexes... Adding emotions to a computer is simple - simply program it to bias its responses towards a particular form upon receiving a certain input. If I make a random number generate only spit out even numbers, I've basically given it emotion."

 

 

...you actually agree with me, you just need to realize it, again. Not to worry, because I can explain everything.

 

 

Sione, your definitions are simply wrong,

My dictionary is simply wrong? At least I tried, sorry for that.

 

...and do not accord with those used by any workers in the field.

 

No problem, and I'm sure glad that you do know the correct definitions used in the field, so can you please tell us, according to what definition my definitions are wrong, please give us correct definitions:

 

Life = ?

Memory = ?

Feeling = ?

Thought = ?

Emotion = ?

Instinct = ?

Intelligence = ?

Consciousness = ?

---------------------

Processing System/Nervous System = ?

 

Information = ?

Information INPUT = ?

Information OUTPUT = ?

 

 

Until then, fully working, mathematically logical definition, like mine, is good for start. At least I know what is state, what is process and what is reaction, you have no idea what you consider "input" and what you consider "output", or do you?

I wonder if he could give some evidence of it?

 

We are talking about simulating AI, what are you talking about... me? I'm flattered. Now, would you like to participate in the discussion and talk about what this thread is about? Don't make me repeat, I said my DEFINITION is evidence, Ok? Now, we need to see what evidence you got, can you talk? Can you answer these, so we at least know what is your position on all this:

 

a. You do not understand definition?

b. You understand definition and agree?

c. You understand and disagree? (provide your definition)

 

 

Thanks in advance for your input that is related to topic and constructive, insults are welcome as well, they are amusing, taa.

 

 

I never knew that computers were spiritual. But since they are based on electromagnetism and you say electromagnetism is spiritual, surely computers are spiritual too [hitting its head]

 

Stop hitting yourself!

 

Your conclusion is correct, but your refusal to accept definitions from the dictionary and encyclopedia will make you hurt yourself like that often. If you could understand that everything is defined by definitions, everything. So everything is true or false ACCORDING to some definition. And according to some of those definitions, yes they are "spiritual".

 

"Spiritual", Synonyms: Immaterial, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spiritual

- what part do you not understand? You know what "synonym" and "immaterial" mean, right?

 

 

So if we pass Sione through a giant inductive coil and he induces an electrical current we know he has a soul?

Ok, I know I'm great, but lets talk about SIMULATING AI and definitions we need to be able to achieve that. Can you offer better definitions or articulate what part you do not agree with so we can improve it, please?

 

 

 

=======================

Variables & Units...

 

 

Life = living status, Yes/No

Memory = max capacity, Byte

Feeling = information input, Byte

Thought = information output, Byte

Emotion = memorized input(felt), Byte

 

 

Consciousness = produced output, Byte/Sec

 

 

Instinct = emotion biased physical reaction/purpose, (+/- %)/Sec

Intelligence = thought biased physical reaction/purpose, (+/- %)/Sec

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Responding System/Nervous System = whatever, say physical volume, mm^3

ydoaPs,

 

What part confused you? Perhaps you lack the ability to process? Anyway, to answer your question, the proof of my intelligence is the DEFINITION that we finally have here. Maybe this definition does not make everyone happy, but it works and everyone is welcome to provide better definition. With definition we can talk about simulation, without definition you can only dream about it.

 

There's nothing spiritual about electromagnetic fields.

Please' date=' have you not noticed that I'm the DEFINITION MASTER? Electromagnetic fields are spiritual (incorporeal), as opposed to material. "Spiritual", relates to e/m fields quite equally as to mind. Please forget religious implications, it simply means "not made out of matter". Mind over matter, free your mind!

 

[b']spir⋅it⋅u⋅al[/b]–adjective

1. of, pertaining to, or consisting of spirit; incorporeal.

2. of or pertaining to the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature: a spiritual approach to life.

1. of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material. See Synonyms at immaterial.

5. characterized by or suggesting predominance of the spirit; ethereal or delicately refined: She is more of a spiritual type...

 

 

 

Homer:

- There's your giraffe, little girl.

Ralph Wiggum:

- I'm a boy.

Homer:

- That's the spirit. Never give up.

 

I think the point Sione is trying to raise is an interesting one: How do you *know* if an AI is intelligent or conscious? How can you test it?

 

Yes' date=' yes, yes... thank Goddess Chance!

 

That is my point, as I said in my 1st post - HOW TO TEST IT?

 

To test it we need to be able to DEFINE it, just so we know WHAT to look for.

 

I guarantee there is zero chance of that happening. Biological systems are simply too large to take advantage of quantum effects without it all getting averaged out.

 

There is no evidence whatsoever for any sort of 'spiritual brain', nor any evidence for any role of EM fields in the brain as information storage.

 

Guarantee sound very assuring, but I guarantee opposite. I also have evidence for it, but this is not important for simulation, it is only a matter of determinism and processing power. What's important is the DEFINITION, because it will apply in either case.

 

 

Well, there's simple motor output - We can train monkeys to use a robot arm via implants in the motor cortex

 

Fantastic! That's EXACTLY the type of thing I was talking about, great!

 

Soon, we'll be reading your minds! http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/12/soon_well_be_reading_your_mind.php

- "No, not really, but this is still a cool result: investigators have used an MRI to read images off the visual cortex. They presented subjects with some simple symbols and letters, scanned their brains, and read off the image from the data — and it was even legible!

 

This is an interesting piece of work, but it has some serious limitations."

 

 

As far as I am concerned, it does not need to be monkey, it can be the simplest nervous system there is, as long as you can "intercept" information and actually "read/predict" reaction before 'organism' reacted, i.e. "read the mind".

 

 

Feeling = brain input

Thought = brain output

Emotion = memorized feeling

 

Instinct = emotion based reaction

Intelligence = thought based reaction

 

Consciousness = production of brain output

 

I don't think your definitons are very good.

 

My definitions are very much perfect, they work! ...especially considering the number of symbols they use, they are kind of general and not fully defined. Again, my point is that "you" do not have definitions at all, so you could not know what is what, and therefore you can not really judge.

 

If you would like to judge, provide your definitions and we will take better one or modify until agreed upon, but we must have them EXACTLY defined in order to answer these questions properly. I want to work together to make operating definition, so that it applies to all the cases and that we can uniquely agree on all the results our definition produces. We must define ALL of the terms and they have to interrelate so it makes sense and compares with general understanding of these terms. Does this sound fair?

 

 

Emotion, for instance, is a cognitive bias in output in response to a particular input, and has nothing to do with memory - amnesiacs still have emotions.

 

The correct objection would be if you asked me to define "brain" and "memory". I was just trying to keep it simple and obvious. I can, of course, explain it in any terms as long as we define them. I do not insist on terminology, we can change words as you like, but those are the TERMS we need to define, whatever we call them.

 

 

I can demonstrate how those definition actually work very well indeed, in practice. They might not give prediction that are in accordance to your understanding, but they can be applied EXACTLY, and according to those definitions I can simulate all of those terms, sure not everyone will agree, but if you think about it, you may realize that those definitions do model life-like 'information processing entities'. Not too bright, not very emotional perhaps and maybe without purpose, but they will move, they will be animated and they will "feel", "remember" and "react" to external input, produce output accordingly to what they previously "felt" or was built into their "genes".

 

As I said, my definitions work, they do model life-like behavior.

 

 

-> OUTPUT=INPUT+MEMORY -> INPUT=MEMORY+OUTPUT -> MEMORY=INPUT+OUTPUT && ->

e.g. Feeling=Sensation/Perception:INPUT = Thought=Cognition/Intention:OUTPUT + Emotion=Feeling Acquired/Genetic:MEMORY

 

Instincts also have nothing to do with emotions - they're simply automatic behavior patterns and pre-programmed drives.

 

And you define consciousness so broadly that any motor command is evidence of it, and even jellyfish are conscious.

 

Ok, so instead of to argue personal opinions about meaning, I want us to try and make definitions together, the shorter the better, according to Occam's razor, and so it can be applied to these cases:

 

a. Virus

b. Bacteria

c. Tree

d. Squid

e. Bird

f. Dog

g. Dolphin

h. human embryo, 2 days

i. human fetus, 21 weeks

j. human born, 2 months

k. human coma, 21 years

l. BlueBrain AI

 

OUTPUT (Thought), is abstract term, not to be confused with physical reaction/response. Anyway, in order to simulate OUTPUT and be able to TEST IT, for all of these we MUST, very EXACTLY, be able to address questions about these attributes of life forms:

 

Life = ?

Memory = ?

Feeling = ?

Thought = ?

Emotion = ?

Instinct = ?

Intelligence = ?

Consciousness = ?

---------------------

Processing System/Responding System/Brain/Nervous System = ?

 

 

These words need to be defined and we do not need to be imperative they are strictly in accord to our general understanding, as long as we know what we are talking about and as long as it relates and computes. I'm happy with any wording, but above terms must be defined in some meaningful relation, they must apply to real life scenario, if we are to start simulating.

 

 

A virus isn't alive.

 

And neither bacteria nor trees even have nervous systems, meaning your brain-based definitions *automatically* leave them out.

 

The fact is that we do not have EXACT DEFINITION of life, so the scientific community is actually divided in opinion... ah, definitions again. According to most simple definition, Life = self-replicating molecule. Again, I do not care how we define it, but it must precisely describe the real world, and I do not mind definition that says virus is not life, as long as it works mathematically and logically and can be applied in practice.

I can not explain it if you refuse to know about it. Please, answer this:

 

1.) "...relative to the field"

2.) "...relative to the ions in the wires"

 

First you said velocity is relative to field then you said it is relative to wire, you have to decide on only one opinion, which one?

 

 

 

This is the key issue. It is relative velocity. There is no such thing as "velocity" in itself' date=' only measured with respect to something else. A magnetic field is what you experience when you move relative to an electrostatic field. Or vice versa, if the electric field (that is, the charged particle) moves relative to you. (Since there is no absolute reference frame, the situations are identical.) That is what is meant by "a magnetic field forms when charge is moving." Moving relative to what the field is acting on.

[/quote']

 

Do you not believe in Lorentz force? F= q(v x B); B= v x q*k*d/r^2; Here is java applet of two parallel wires, is velocity relative to wire or field? http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/education/tutorials/java/parallelwires/index.html

 

Why are you so stubborn? You just keep repeating your opinion and you have equations right in front of you. Why don't you look it up on the Internet and show me any experiment that shows otherwise. Alternatively, you may look up studies about electron beams and see if they found any attraction there.

 

 

- "A magnetic field is what you experience when you move relative to an electrostatic field."

No, magnetic field is this: B= v x q*k*d/r^2. And yes, WHEN you are moving relative to it, but how do you explain attraction when they DO NOT have any relative speed, when they travel in parallel?

 

 

- "This is the key issue. It is relative velocity."

Ok, tell me then what is relative velocity of two particles traveling in parallel?

Electrons' date=' or electrons in wires? Two electrons, by themselves, will repel each other.

[/quote']

 

Yes, they will repel due to electrostatic field, I just did not want to complicate. What I said is they will "repel less", "attract more" the faster they are going. Free electrons and electrons in wires alike, thought it is much harder to test it with free electrons because they will repel quite strongly as velocities gets lower from that of speed of light, it is kind of hard to have them travel in parallel, but the effect could be measured regardless. I mean, look at the equations, they simply just work that way, as if there is some absolute reference frame.

 

 

That equation describes the force on a charged particle as it moves through a magnetic field. The v in the equation is the particle's velocity relative to the field. Moving the particle or moving the source of the field in the opposite direction has the same effect. There is no absolute velocity.

 

Yes' date=' it is related/proportional to magnetic field, only it is not "through a magnetic field", in this case, but along with it, "in it", without any relative velocity. Ok, let me explain, look at the other part and consider the whole situation, we have this then:

 

F= q(v x B)

B= v x q*k*d/r^2

 

 

It should be more obvious to see the strength of magnetic field is proportional to velocity and distance. Now, it is a basic physics knowledge that magnetic field forms when charge is moving, it tell us magnetic field is zero when charge is not moving and we can see the strength increases as velocity increases, right? Magnetic potential vector field increases with velocity, not relative velocity. Perhaps I got the equations wrong?

 

 

Your bold text is, in fact, false. Two isolated electrons with no relative velocity will simply repel one another electrostatically. "The faster they are moving" is meaningless, inasmuch as there is no such thing as absolute velocity. Parallel currents in wires is a different situation, inasmuch as they are moving relative to the ions in the wires.

 

 

1.) "...relative to the field"

2.) "...relative to the ions in the wires"

 

First you said velocity is relative to field then you said it is relative to wire, which one then? If it is relative to field, then when two fields travel without any relative velocity there should not be any attraction, right? But there is, so obviously there is some absolute reference frame, as far as charged particles are concerned anyway. http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/education/tutorials/java/parallelwires/index.html

Remember' date=' biology isn't optimal. Most systems are fairly sloppy, and some are so badly cobbled together it's amazing they even work at all.

[/quote']

I said I agree, but we still must be sure if the system we are talking about is indeed biological as opposed to electrical quantum machine. I accept all your theories, no problem. We just need to talk about experiments and observations from now on.

 

Um, what? What does momentum have to do with neurons. Nothing.

Look, we agreed we do not know for sure. I accept your theory, thought if it turns out brain is quantum machine, then direction, velocity and spin of charged particles provide much more information than only spatial position in 3D, it would make for a better computer.

 

We've been sticking wires into animal's brains for decades now, and we know a LOT. We can actually *read* the visual stimuli a monkey sees directly from its brain. We've mapped the entire nervous system of several simpler animals.

Beautiful, that is very interesting, can you give some links?

 

However, 'visual stimuli' is INPUT, what we need to know is how to recognize brain "OUTPUT". It is hard to know because the information feeds recursively back into brain, there is no screen to display output. In any case, that is the way to go.

 

'Consciousness' is a tricky term. Emotions, however, are simple. They're literally nothing more than cognitive reflexes, no more special or complex than withdrawing your hand from a hot stove.

 

Adding emotions to a computer is simple - simply program it to bias its responses towards a particular form upon receiving a certain input. If I make a random number generate only spit out even numbers, I've basically given it emotion.

Fantastic! I absolutely agree.

 

Obviously. Compound A + Compound B = Compound C.

Yeah, but I heard of this as well:

 

A+B+C = AB, C

A+B+C = AC, B

 

Can we test it?

 

Neither. It's been well established via animal experiments that information is encoded into the nervous system by physical rearrangement of the connections between neurons and by alterations of the properties of individual neurons (see the leaky bucket analogy - basically permanently changing hole size or input flow).

What you are referring to is what I call "chemical structure", physical as opposed to e/m fields that are SPIRITUAL, like "spiritual mind". How do you call it? You do not really know what is "information" and how it looks inside the brain. You can only say that thought process is SOMEHOW CONNECTED to physical rearrangements and chemical structures and reactions, but unless you can read thoughts you do not know in what form that information really exists.

 

EM fields in the majority of animals are byproducts of cellular activity, with no usefulness to the animal itself (the exceptions obviously being electric fish such as knifefish, etc.)

That's fine, now lets talk about pictures of monkey thoughts.

 

It depends how you define the terms, but the first three, definitely not, as they lack a nervous system. Squid are iffy - some cephalopods are smarter than rats and mice. Birds, dogs and dolphins have been empirically observed displaying behavioral tendencies which suggest cognitive processes similar to human emotions.

 

Let me define:

 

Feeling = brain input

Thought = brain output

Emotion = memorized feeling

 

Instinct = emotion based reaction

Intelligence = thought based reaction

 

Consciousness = production of brain output

 

 

I think all of them have emotions and instincts, even Virus. And here is my argument, which is your argument from above: - "Emotions, however, are simple. They're literally nothing more than cognitive reflexes... Adding emotions to a computer is simple - simply program it to bias its responses towards a particular form upon receiving a certain input. If I make a random number generate only spit out even numbers, I've basically given it emotion."

 

 

 

Feeling=Sensation/Perception:INPUT = (Thought=Cognition/Intention:OUTPUT) + (Emotion=Feeling Acquired/Genetic:MEMORY)

 

 

We can, have, and have been studying it in detail for close to 30 years.

 

Brain activity is the pattern of firing of neurons. We can directly observe it via FMI and PET scans, the latter of which are becoming higher and higher resolution, allowing us closer and closer to a neuron-by-neuron map of brain activity.

 

We can also use electromyography, but we don't on humans for ethical reasons (it requires implantation of wire electrodes and, usually, termination and dissection to confirm placement).

So, tell me, according to all the technology mentioned - does a person in a coma feels anything, dream, think or have consciousness?

 

 

How do you know we have it? How do you know it isn't illusory?

 

That is my question, I asked first.

We do not know even if we have it, then how can we talk about simulating it?

 

We tend to imagine that there's a little 'free will' module somewhere in the brain that's somehow consciously making decisions, but there is a growing body of evidence from the imaging methods described above that we don't even make decisions - we just react, then justify it later (albeit only a few dozen milliseconds later).

 

In short, it's possible that even *humans* are merely highly complex learning neuronal networks that spit out info based on what we're given, without any *actual* "man behind the curtain" so to speak. Perhaps the impression of 'making a decision' is just a cognitive illusion. As unflattering as it may be, it's a possibility rooted in empirical studies, and one we have to consider.

 

This is great!

I love it, shame that I have to argue against it.

 

 

"we just react, then justify it later"

- this would explain a lot about human behavior, wouldn't it?

- how much sense words like "self-awareness" make with such automatic justification?

 

Do you find it possible deterministic interplay of physics forces had this very moment of you reading this line of text destine to happen, guaranteed based only on physics and positions of particle at the time of Big-Bang? According to entropy and efficiency principle, this seem opposite of what should happen.

Oh, yes. Of course. I am already well aware of the fact that I can leave whenever I deem appropriate. Now, where is that proof of which you spoke above?

 

Don't curse in my thread, you human!

 

I thought you refused to look into it, proof is on YouTube, in videos where Credo Mutwa tells his story: http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=LleNA6dOmKk

 

 

Note that this is not for the faint of heart, unsuspected younglings should seek parental guidance.

Again, that is incorrect. The velocity is relative. The strength of the magnetic field you experience is dependent on your velocity relative to the electron.

 

What? What electron?

What is velocity relative to again, look: F= q(v x B) ?

 

 

You seem to not know, can you respond to this:

- "Two electrons traveling in parallel with the same velocity, without any relative velocity, will attract each other more the faster they are moving." Do you know about this, you do not know or you claim is false?

Not until I see said proof.

 

That story is a part of the proof and is important to understand the rest.

It is prerequisite for this discussion since this discussion is about that story.

 

 

If you do not want to participate, you are free to leave.

Show me proof of alien races, and I will show you willingness to accept evidence regarding gentic engineering conducted by them.

 

Sure, that is what I offer.

 

However, can you please answer my question first and tell me how did you find Credo's story? Did you find it interesting and have you seen all the parts?

Did I mention Reptilian Shape-Shifting Aliens?

 

 

How would you like an idea that you are cross-breed specimen in genetic engineering experiments of crazy alien race? Evidence is documented in peer reviewed papers as unexplained abrupt genome alternations at certain historical points that can be tracked down the time line back to first fossils. These genome sequences appear artificial as they do not fit the theory of evolution and natural selection, but even more dramatically these "modifications" look similar as to what happens when cross-breeding not so compatible species.

 

 

Credo Mutwa story is part of my argument, not in regards to aliens at all, but more to draw some historical/archeological conclusions. In fact you can disregard the whole alien business in Credo's story, the story is 90% about history. It is very, very interesting story that you can watch on YouTube. He is well known after his books that were all successful commercially. If you do not want to believe it, it is still A++ "Science Fiction" story. Credo is fantastic narrator and you will find it hard not to believe it. It is an epic story about the True History of Africa, World Wars, Religion and Bloodlines.

 

I would like some opinions about it, because if everyone disregard this as nonsense without even looking at it, then it is not worth arguing about. And once you see all that and would like see some more proof, let me know.