Fred56

That is not a definition of it. Like I said, your brain is stuck.

"It depends on context."

"we are something collecting itself"

 

In the sense that all information we acquire is something that we are. We expend some part of "ourselves" (in thermodynamic terms) in order to acquire.

Evolution follows this sense of accumulation, and "improvement" or "direction", i.e. purpose. Life and evolution are purposeful, then.

Hey, some f**kwit keeps posting garbage.. Maybe there's more than one of them?

But if that's all he has in that thing he thinks is a brain, maybe I should be feeling sorry for him.

I certainly hope so, he's starting to piss me off, just a little.

So how come no-one who claims to know, can actually say anything meaningful about entropy? Except for non sequiturs like" Entropy isn't change"??

What a bunch of idiots...

But at least you're all "Generally quite harmless"

...the entropy of any wiki, or node. It's a library where the books aren't static copies. There's a record, or audit, of changes. Entropy = change, so higher entropy is a measure of how contentious any article is. Expectation comes into it too, or uncertainty[/b'].

To prove your assertion wrong' date=' one simply must come up with an example of change that is not entropy. Anyone wish to offer any examples...of a change that is not entropy?

[/quote']Come on then, Mr I now it all.

I bet you can't, there's no such thing, for a kick-off.

 

all expenditure of energy (including that made to find and ingest food), therefore represents the entropy[/b'] of the acquired learning (knowledge or information). In other words all observers are the result of their entire lifetime of 'observation'.

I reckon so.

and may no longer make sense to you ... I needed to clarify.

You have absolutely no idea what entropy is do you? You can't post anything that suggests you have the slightest notion, so resort to graffitos.

I'd say you don't know much of anything else. You're just a monkey looking for nits to pick out and chew on.

A goddam jabbering little monkey.

You're a troll, Fred.

lay the entropy smack-down again?

"When we use a word, it means exactly what we say it does!"

entropy means what scientists say it means

What's a scientist?

No-one who disagrees with entropy = change can claim to be one' date=' can they?

They might be people who understand enough to hold some job down,

but someone who says it's [b']wrong [/b]to say "Entropy and change are the same" can't be very educated about what entropy is. IMO.

But then I'm not a scientist like you guys.

Now tell me I'm all wrong, go on.

as support for "entropy = change"...

I present everything I've posted in this and other threads on the topic, only. And any 'discussions' with you 'scientists' about it, which never seem to come to any conclusion.

one of the passages was "without any change"

Got it

Am I correct in thinking that god is playing your brain like an organ

NO, YOU IDIOT.

His son's on the keyboard, you ning. You know, that Jesus dude (I call him J -coz he hands lots of them around).

It helps the rest of us if you're at least minimally co he rant[/b'].

Good for the bird.

I can hear a bird right now.

Since we're totally OT: It's a tui. It's 4:15 am and this bird is calling away sort of plaintively (but this is my imagination, I don't think tuis get plaintive); here smack in the middle of suburbia there's a native bird on a pohutukawa tree, singing the same kind of thing that they would have centuries ago, when all this city wasn't here.

Now that's plaintive. Mezzopiano, maybe.

Your opinion that information reduces informational entropy is invalid.... it doesn't make any sense to measure the entropy of the system using the Boltzman's entropy equation S = K log W....you can't measure entropy based on uncertainty[/b'].

Good one.

So you think Claude Shannon, John von Neumann, Turing & co., are wrong in saying you can measure entropy based on uncertainty?

Here's my take (from the usual source):

Intuitively, the combined system contains H(X,Y) bits of information: we need H(X,Y) bits of information to reconstruct its exact state.

If we learn the value of X, we have gained H(X) bits of information, and the system has H(Y | X) bits remaining of uncertainty.

H(Y | X) = 0 if and only if the value of Y is completely determined by the value of X. Conversely, H(Y | X) = H(Y) if and only if Y and X are independent random variables.

In quantum information theory, the conditional entropy is generalized to the conditional quantum entropy.

The conditional quantum entropy is an entropy measure used in quantum information theory. It is a generalization of the conditional entropy of classical information theory.

The conditional entropy is written S(ρ | σ), or H(ρ | σ), depending on the notation being used for the von Neumann entropy.

John von Neumann provided in this work a theory of measurement, where the usual notion of wave collapse is described as an irreversible process (the so called von Neumann or projective measurement).

Unlike the classical conditional entropy, the conditional quantum entropy can be negative." --wikipedia.org

i.e. Thermodynamics does not apply (except in an equivalent -but inverse- sense)

Comments?

E= hv tells you how much energy a photon has.

Has where? What does a photon do with this energy it carries around?

What happens to a photon when an electron absorbs it?

Where does it go? The same place it goes when it turns into excitons in that optical fibre. It "vanishes".

P.S. If there are some who are unable to see what this thread is on about; that it doesn't seem to present a coherent discussion, I suggest the following meditation:

Why do you want it to "mean something" to you?

If it isn't transparent, post a question, fer chrissakes. Don't just assume that YOU know anything about what I'm saying. At all.

P.P.S. I can be rude and insulting too. But this is pointless, surely. Now children, really

I didn't feel like putting a moniker on everything I changed. So I put these things "()" around it instead. I left it up to the reader to decide.

Does anyone have any idea who this Janis is?

My room's got the one I practise on, and there's this sort of 'corner of my eye' one, with this dude all in black;

I keep trying to tell him I can't hear a thing he's playing (the ones in my east and west naves are too loud). The bishop told me to just ignore the guy, so it's cool.

Jimi, Claude, and Sergei should be back with Ron later --later Ron.

(we're working on this Pavane thing...)

It isn't not a blog too.

Why don't you blog off, and go blog someone else?

Boo!

Give SOME respect to the people around you)

I have absolutely 0 idea what you are on about, you know.

If editing someone's post, to make an analysis of it in my own light is such a big problem (for you at least), what do you think I , or you , or anyone else, should do about "your" problem?

Don't think I'm expectantly awaiting your response, either. I'd rather you just thought about it, frankly.

"3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause."

But this doesn't happen here at SFN. Thank goodness.

Can you please stop splattering the blackboard with baked-bean bombs? Thankyou

Originally Posted by Fred56

I had another look at the post this was in; so it all starts with a bit of dangerous thinking, or radicalspeak?

Symptoms of Groupthink

 

Janis has documented eight symptoms of groupthink:

 

1. Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.

(brainburping/visionary 'thinking')

2. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.

(BeliefSystem B)

3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.

(establishment of BeliefSys B)

4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.

(incorrect filtering or processing -wrong algorithms; B is incorrect function set linguistic/semantic toolkit)

5. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.

(feedback and control mechanisms: to enhance a 'signal')

6. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.

(doctrine: formalisation of B)

7. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.

(delusional belief: B doesn't map' date=' except if B is 'upheld' - maintained by delusional cycles of inference)

8. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.

(maintenance/control of dogma & doctrinal discursion -co-option of 'agents'; isolation of the 'source')

/me

Yeah I posted that reference before.. we studied this in school.

 

Janis also gives a few tips on how to avoid it; it's very interesting to see its effect' date=' specifically on bodies like the government. In my Political Science class we analyzed "The Bay of Pigs" decisions through the idea of "Groupthink".. very interesting conclusions.

 

~moo

[/quote']

I think the first 'cycles' in the list would probably be maintained, too, to keep fresh 'visions' coming to the table. Congruent with 'current thinking', of course.

I bet this is a close fit to what those assholes in Burma do, to justify their despotism.

Well, who wouldn't?

Quite - which is it?

Is this "model" -a thing that is energy, i.e. E = hv;

or is it a bag, or 'container' that carries it around? A shopping bag for the energy-fairies? 'Scuse the humour, it just kind of comes out all by itself.

There who goes?

storing sequences of optical data pulses by converting[/b'] them into long-lived acoustic excitations

Do you know what Brillouin scattering is?

Aren't you going to tell us?

P.S. What does the following have to do with this >> Can you see a connection (I can)

A single photon' date=' or its measurement, cannot represent anything more [b']meaningful than a "Schrodinger's cat" state.

"There is something about our minds that is non computable: NP-complete , something that is beyond the realm of computation.

 

So we can 'know' things other than through algorithms, sort of related to Godel's famous theorem. The only thing that can give us this non computable element in nature is a process that is not deterministic."

There are lots of things like this where computation and physics are related in non-trivial ways, and where cross-overs between classical and quantum behavior may affect computational scaling in a way that isn't just either/or.

+++++++++++++++<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>

Now for a bit of sailing

Channels are everywhere.

The idea of a channel is a fairly simple one. There are channels everywhere.

The English Channel is a body of water that flows, also a geological (and submarine) feature, a gap, or separation between bodies of land. So, a river: a static channel, through which something flows -water. Water can be said to be the 'information', the English Channel commutes between the North Atlantic, and the Irish sea and Atlantic.

This body of water will carry, or commute, any object caught up in its flow: that is: anything that floats, or doesn't sink to the seafloor. So, the English channel's geology (it's structure) is a commuter -of water and anything that the water carries.

The water will modulate and translocate or displace any 'message': a sealed, empty bottle, a boat, a log of wood, a Nike trainer, anything with air in it. It's transitive and commutative.

Also, as a natural gap between two bodies of land, there's significant human traffic across this same body of water. Trade, people and vehicle movement, all travel or use this natural barrier, as a channel. There's even a fixed 'route' (or channel): a tunnel; for this commutation (of people and goods) that avoids the natural liquid one.

So, the organ, as it were, isn't running on steam?

The reality of a photon is that it is a photon, it obeys rules of QM that in general have no analogue - or at least, useful analogue - in the real world. Its state in a way encapsulates waves and particles, but it is, as a complete explanation, neither of these classical models. If your goal is to confine [the] view of physics to topics you can answer that is [a] choice.

Also it's both a wave and particle; and neither. That's 4.

Towards a "lexicon of neural biochemistry".

And an adjunct "offering"

Maintenance (late phase) of LTP and central sensitization.

The mitogenactivated protein kinase (MAPK) cascade is activated in both hippocampal and dorsal horn neurons.

 

The receptors and signaling pathways in dorsal horn and hippocampal neurons are indicated. Activated extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK; a MAPK) is translocated to the nucleus and activates the transcription factors cAMP-response-element-binding protein (CREB) and Elk-1, causing them to bind to cAMP-response elements (CRE) or serum-response elements (SRE) on gene promoter regions, respectively.

 

This triggers transcription of immediate-early genes (IEG) and late-response genes (LRG).

 

Abbreviations: bAR, b adrenoceptor; CaMK, Ca2þ/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase; DR, dopamine receptor; Dyn, dynorphin; mAChR, muscarinic ACh receptor; MEK, MAPK kinase; mglu, metabotropic glutamate receptor; NK1, neurokinin 1; PKA, cAMP-dependent protein kinase; PKC, Ca2þ/phospholipid-dependent protein kinase; trkB, tropomyosinrelated kinase B.

 

--Ru-Rong Ji1, Tatsuro Kohno1, Kimberly A. Moore2 and Clifford J. Woolf1

1Neural Plasticity Research Group, Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02129, USA

2Department of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA

Fear Memory Formation Involves p190 RhoGAP and ROCK Proteins through a GRB2-Mediated Complex

p190 RhoGAP phosphorylation by the Src proteins induces its interaction with SH2-containing proteins such as p120 RasGAP (Hu and Settleman 1997 and Roof et al. 1998).

 

A GRB2-p66Shc-RasGAP-p190 RhoGAP complex was observed during early morphogenic events of gastrulation and is modulated by changes in cell contacts (Dupont and Blancq, 1999).

 

The formation of this molecular complex, in LA, may promote the translocation of p190 RhoGAP by Shc or GRB2 to a distinct neuronal area in close proximity to its site of action.

 

For example, GRB2 and members of the Rho GTPase family bind to N-WASP, a protein involved in actin polymerization (Snapper and Rosen, 1999).

 

In addition, extracellular stimulation, such as activation of integrin, induces rapid translocation of p190 RhoGAP to cytoskeleton and membrane ruffling where it colocalized with polymerized actin (Nakahara et al. 1998 and Sharma 1998).

 

It is therefore plausible that fear conditioning couples p190 RhoGAP to the cytoskeleton via GRB2 and induces modulation of actin dynamics as well as changes in dendritic and spine morphology in LA.

 

Actin dynamics are involved in remodeling the morphology of dendrites and spines (Matus, 2000), and these structures have been strongly implicated in synaptic plasticity (Nimchinsky et al., 2002).

--Raphael Lamprecht, Claudia R. Farb and Joseph E. LeDoux

Neuron 14 November 2002, Pages 727-738

"...Fred does a fun job of explaining things poetically, you must note... This is why I referenced unicorns."

Those links you think I should read: can you paste anything from that refutes the statement: Entropy = change ?

 

"Entropy serves as a measure of the number of quantum states accessible to a macroscopyic system at a given energy." No mention of change there.

 

If entropy is change' date=' why does it say "entropy change" at the beginning of the earlier statement?[/quote']

Your 'methods' OK to keep thumping this one around?

“energy” in entropy considerations refers to the motional energy of molecules' date=' and (if applicable) any phase [b']change[/b], and (in chemical reactions) bond energies in a system.

 

“dispersal of energy” in macro thermodynamics occurs in two ways:

 

(1) "how much" involves heat transfer, usually ΔH, to or from system and thus from or to its surroundings;

 

(2) "how widely" means spreading out the initial energy of a system in some manner, e.g., in gas expansion into a vacuum or mixing of ideal gases, the system's volume increases and thereby the initial energy of any component is simply more dispersed in that larger three-dimensional volume without any change in motional or other energies.

 

In chemical reactions, ΔG is the function that must be used to evaluate the net energy dispersal in the universe of system and surroundings.

 

In macro thermodynamics, both spontaneous and non-spontaneous processes are ultimately measured by their relationship to ΔS = qrev/T, where q is the energy that is dispersible/dispersed.

The pitfall is to think or say that ΔS_system is "the entropy" change. It's not since it is only part of the total entropy change.

[R]esearcher John Cramer has proposed a way of using entanglement that could reverse the timing of cause and effect. It relies on the way that light can be measured as a particle or as a wave when passing through two slits - but not both.

 

Streams of entangled photons are sent off in two directions, One goes immediately through a pair of slits, and an instrument registers whether the outcome was a measurement as waves or particles.

 

The second stream goes through a delay line, arriving at slits a little later. In this case a moveable detector forces the measurement to be waves or particles.

 

Because of the spooky link of entanglement the theory is that the light passing through the first detector will be forced to be in the appropriate form, even though the measurement was taken before the action that decided what the outcome should be.

 

Bear in mind that this experiment hasn't been carried out yet, and some doubt it's practicality - but it is being taken seriously by the science community.

I don't think the reason you get "flammed" has anything to do with any particular word

"tradesman methods knowing tools is prepared most suitable to choose"

What about them ones?