Ben Banana

Don't you mean "Neurologist"? And if you're really just interested in the Autistic spectrum, you'd plainly ask a psychologist.

I could say this for every post you've written: Keep your enthusiasm for science fiction toned down as much as possible when speculating amongst these forums. However, I don't say you can't keep it for inspiration.

Usually, a little bit of this "wild speculation" won't hurt much, but I think you've really gone over the top here.

Biography: Under the autistic spectrum

Same here! Although I, over all things, never let that spoil my scientific character. I'll be a goof idiot by everything else in life.

Checkout "HTM" (Hierarchical Temporal Memory):

http://numenta.com/htm-overview.php

http://numenta.com/h...w/education.php

There's even a nice book you can read about this technique, which was written by the same guy who invented it and co-founded Numenta:

http://www.onintelligence.org/

Alternatively, here's a blog post which somewhat answers around your question, although it's about Vantage Point trees rather than neural networks:

http://stevehanov.ca...ndex.php?id=130

I hope this helps.

Cheers,

Ben

What's this? China kidnapped a scientist or something? Oh lovely... I don't get it. Is this a hoax anyway?

Edit:

Oh wait is it North Korea then? That sounds more reasonable, actually.

Oh.. Now this topic is really ugly.

Yes it was a typo. Its 11 and Ive had a knackering day.

Sorry.

And I do understand "energy" thanks.

To be honest, I really doubt that because...

Did you take in the "digging a hole" part?

Likewise, you could say: with a weighing-scale and two identical objects, the axis will remain put (at "zero") regardless of which side each individual object is currently set. The heavier one side, the lighter the other.

Even as the position of both objects may torque the balance, the energy from this will be absolute. You can't pretend energy as the balance's angle.

So then, are you talking of charge? Well you're saying nonsense either-way.

[...] I am an atheist [...]

That's good! I think you're just trying to find a clever way to prove the notion of "God" impossible. I wish to assist you.

Edit:

Eh, here I go. A popular argument from theists is:

Because "God" created the laws of the universe, i.e. the Ten Commandments and even the laws of physics (which really don't both qualify as laws when taken from the same aspect), he has control over everything, the Alpha and the Omega (I don't care what that's supposed to mean).

Whatever religious "proof" you find out there, it always relies on highly abstract (the most unreliable) axioms, which often circulate for validation.

Energy is equal to mass divided by the speed of light squared.

Hopefully that's a typo, but good try.

What I mean by 10 and -10 is energy.

Uh...?

The number is not important as the importance is that both numbers are the same.

You're just saying x - x = 0.

Energy is everything in the universe. Everything. Even "a flying spaghetti monster" is mass which is energy.

Cool story, but that doesn't mean anything new.

For all energy there is negative energy.

You don't even understand the notion of "negative energy." Possibly not even what "energy" really means.

As for tar... I have some things to say about a 'God' which governs the universe (as most put it), and "makes it tick" etc. But I'll cop-out from that discussion until I have the time.

I am dumbfounded. Apparently there's a massive misconclusion after this comma. Sorry, but I still don't get how this makes any sense at all:

If everything adds up to nothing, we don't need a God to create anything.

Unfortunately, this topic is reminding me of the horrid logic from Marko Rodin which I once encountered a few months ago. Being scientific, I absolutely cannot do without complete logic. I hope you establish a more reliable sense. This reliability is known as science.

I'm sorry to be a pest... I'm new here, so if you have any issues with me, please tell me about them soon (I already have -1 reputation? help me). Thanks.

In peace,

Ben

Edit:

To paraphrase Albert Einstein, a number by itself has no significance and only deserves the designation of a number by virtue of its being a member of a group of objects with some shared characteristics.

Indeed. This is somewhat analagous, by concept, to his theories of relativity. There's curious logic to be explored around here. Perhaps thats what were really discussing (roughly now), hmm? Alright... I'll see if I can understand this better, but the topic is a bit messy so far.

Edit Two:

Morgsboi, thanks for your re-attempt to explain. However, your logic remains incredibly loose and effectively useless.

I think you're both fundamentally faulted.

If everything adds up to nothing, we don't need a God to create anything.

That statement is incomplete, so elaborate your unusual logic please.

yeah, but we need somebody to keep the books

What would this mean? Someone concious is also a "clockwork-machine" who governs the universe?

I'll write short repsonses until sense is put. Thanks.