Donn
Philosopher
You sound like a talking flip flop. Now it's software, now it's not. It's inconsistent and strange.
Make your neurocluster up. Is the "I" software, or not?
What is the definition of “I”? -- “I” is the software which runs on neural-network-HW
- Thread starter neuroclusterbrain
- Start date
You sound like a talking flip flop. Now it's software, now it's not. It's inconsistent and strange.
Make your neurocluster up. Is the "I" software, or not?
barehl
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2013
- Messages
- 2,655
Intel made the first calculator using software when it created the 4004 back in 1971. I don't know of any calculator newer than 1975 that doesn't use software.
Donn
Philosopher
Okay, I got it wrong. Can you list any circuits that do a fixed thing without software, to help my explanation?
Afterthought: Created using software - does that mean software led to the final circuit, which may not employ machine code and a cpu? i.e. it was designed by software but does not, itself, run code.
Anyway, my point is there are circuits that use gates but do not have opcodes and operands and do not require a processor. These circuits are still doing complex things. I suppose they don't differ from the mentioned analogue computers.
neuroclusterbrain
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2013
- Messages
- 148
Building the architecture/structure of the network is a form of programming. Yes, this form of programming is different from digital programming, however it is still “programming”.
And the person who builds the architecture/structure of the network is called a “programmer”. This programmer builds a “program” via means of building the architecture/structure of the network. The synonym for word “program” is the word “software”.
Here is homework reading for Porpoise of Life – a textbook “Handbook of analog computation”, go to Chapter 3, which explains the analog programming of analog computers
=======================
http://www.analogmuseum.org/library/handbook_of_analog_computation.pdf
Chapter 3. Elementary analog programming
=======================
The program can be modified/changed by: 1) the programmer, or 2) the program can modify itself.
In computer industry self-modifying (polymorphic) software programs most usually are written by programmers who write computer viruses.
Brain also has self-modifying (polymorphic) capabilities and can reprogram its network within the range of certain limitations.
=======================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymorphic_code
In computer terminology, polymorphic code is code that uses a polymorphic engine to mutate while keeping the original algorithm intact. That is, the code changes itself each time it runs, but the function of the code (its semantics) will not change at all. For example, 1+3 and 6-2 both achieve the same result while using different code. This technique is sometimes used by computer viruses, shellcodes and computer worms to hide their presence.
Encryption is the most common method to hide code. With encryption, the main body of the code (also called its payload) is encrypted and will appear meaningless. For the code to function as before, a decryption function is added to the code. When the code is executed this function reads the payload and decrypts it before executing it in turn.
Encryption alone is not polymorphism. To gain polymorphic behavior, the encryptor/decryptor pair are mutated with each copy of the code. This allows different versions of some code while all function the same.
=======================
Explanation is bellow.
Different people have different backgrounds and different qualifications and as the result they have different comprehension levels of the material.
When we write the description of “Neurocluster Brain Model” we try to present everything as simple as possible, however we do admit that we sometimes overestimate the capabilities/qualifications of some common casual readers.
A lot of material about “Neurocluster Brain Model” requires prerequisites in order to understand the material. If the reader does not meet the prerequisites then he will misunderstand some parts of the material or even the whole material.
=======================
http://registrar.utexas.edu/students/registration/before/prerequisites
A prerequisite is a course you must have completed before registering for another. Find out about prerequisites prior to registration using university catalogs, the course schedule, or our Prerequisite Check system.
=======================
In order to fully 100% comprehend the material about “Neurocluster Brain Model” the prerequisites are: training/qualification in neuroscience, plus training/qualification in computer science, plus training/qualification in physics, plus training/qualification in electronics – and all of them simultaneously at the same time. And how many readers have training/qualification in all of these areas simultaneously at the same time? Not many, to say the least.
If the reader has training/qualification only in neuroscience then it is not enough. If the reader has training/qualification only in physics then it is not enough. If the reader has training/qualification only in computer science then it is not enough. If the reader has training/qualification only in electronics then it is not enough.
The purpose of this thread is to test and to debug the description/presentation of “Neurocluster Brain Model” in order to find out which parts of the material are comprehensive for the average statistical reader and which parts of the material are totally misunderstood. Then, according to the feedback, remake/redesign the description/presentation of “Neurocluster Brain Model” in order to increase its comprehensibility for the average statistical reader. Very often the sacrifice of accuracy is needed in order to increase the comprehensibility of the material. Sometimes a little inaccuracy saves a ton of explanation.
As for example, recent testing revealed that some people do understand that brain contains software, and some people do not understand that.
So it is obvious that we need a workaround solution here.
Workaround solution is very simple.
Bellow are instructions for those readers who think that “brain contains no software”.
In all text which was posted by neuroclusterbrain about “Neurocluster Brain Model” just replace the word “software” with the word “neurocluster” and then read all postings anew. Just forget the word “software” and everywhere where you see the word “software” just replace this word with the word “neurocluster” and this should increase its comprehensibility of the text for those readers. The general idea/concept of “Neurocluster Brain Model” will stay the same – the essence of “Neurocluster Brain Model” is that it is able to explain and reveal the underlying nature of occult/religious phenomena, and the precise naming of the terms plays a second role here. You think that “brain contains no software”? Ok, let’s assume for the moment that “brain contains no software”. And what about neuroclusters? Does the brain contain clusters of neurons? Yes, it does. Good. Then stay with that, stay with “neuroclusters”, do not think about “software”, just stay with “neuroclusters” – that will be good enough. The concept of “software” is too complicated so it is not worth to dwell into that, staying with “neuroclusters” will be good enough.
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
As a particularly relevant example, artificial neural networks can can be implemented in FPGAs as finite state machines with no software involved.
Less exotically, there are examples like cryptographic hardware and digital signal processing, etc.
Last edited:
barehl
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2013
- Messages
- 2,655
I didn't realize until now just how much of your posts were copy and paste from http://neuroclusterbrain.com/. It's almost like talking to a bot.
The truth is I can indeed describe consciousness with a rigorous scientific definition. It would take about one book chapter to explain it to you. I can give tests that would show that something is conscious which you apparently believe is impossible.
Your theory is based almost entirely on assumptions and misinterpretations. For example, it has never been shown that severing the corpus collosum creates two distinctive personalities. Nor has it ever been shown that there are any actual cases of multiple personality disorder.
Autonomous neural clusters is an assumption. Some of the descriptions such as voices and demon possession would not be distinct from schizophrenia. There is no evidence that schizophrenia is caused by competing personalities.
This attempted proof is interesting:
Another way to prove the existence of autonomic neuroclusters is the analysis of features of the dream characters. During the dreaming process the man sees various characters (people/animals/etc) in the dream scenario. Let’s ask a simple question – do these characters (which are seen in the dream) have their own consciousness or not?
No, the characters in a dream or in a story could not have their own consciousness since they don't have any foundation for perception, memory, analysis, or reaction. This is also true of hallucinated figures. And in fact you can see this. Even when people with schizophrenia have hallucinations of other people they never interact with them physically. In other words, while they may talk to the hallucination they never hand an object to the hallucination, or expect the hallucination to do actual work. A person with schizophrenia may open a door for a hallucination but never expects a hallucination to open a door for them. So, clearly it is understood at some level that the hallucination is not real. This is not unlike watching a young girl have a tea party with stuffed animals.
Yet, you claim:
However all these paradoxes can be easily solved using neurocluster brain model. Susane which you see in your dream is not the Susane’s spirit, but instead a neurocluster into which the model of Susane is written and stored. This neurocluster simulates all the behavior of Susane: how Susane moves, how Susane talks, etc. The more accurate and the more detailed the model of Susane is, the more realistic the dream scenario becomes
You've attempted to create an elaborate model to explain something as simple as imagination.
Last edited:
barehl
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2013
- Messages
- 2,655
Software is when there are specific instructions that allow functional elements to be used for more than one task. The closest analogy I can think of would be a recipe. In other words, recipes allow someone to use the same cooking equipment to make more than one dish. You might think that the roll for a player piano would be software but it isn't because it doesn't include control elements. It would be software if, for example, sections could be repeated. This roll is actually just a script. A script can be defined as a linear template. Templates include things like cookie cutters and rubber stamps. But if I used a series of stencils to paint a sign in multiple colors, that would be a script.
I did self-modifying code more than 30 years ago and I'm familiar with polymorphism in C++. Neither of these does what you think it does. Neither is an example of self-programming.
Except this is not genuine polymorphism. The program is only modifying non-functional parts of the code to prevent a simple, byte-pattern match.
Or underestimate.
Your best bet is to scrap it and create a real theory.
barehl
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2013
- Messages
- 2,655
You don't even need circuits. The coin sorter in a pop machine has a fixed function without software.
This isn't that complicated. There are routine instructions for finding roots and transcendental numbers. If you don't calculate these using software then your only alternative is to look them up in a table. People used to use trig tables and log tables. A calculator just computes them as needed using a standard algorithm. This requires software.
The most complex thing I can think of would probably be the gun aiming equipment on the Iowa class battleships. They took a number of factors into consideration to compute a firing solution. They didn't use software.
neuroclusterbrain
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2013
- Messages
- 148
Let’s summarize the essence of definitions provided by barehl:
1) What is the “intelligence”, how can we detect if object X has intelligence or not? --> Object X has intelligence ONLY IF it has consciousness (== “there are no organisms that have intelligence without consciousness”)
2) What is the “consciousness”, how can do we detect if object X has consciousness or not? --> Object X has consciousness ONLY IF it has intelligence (== “Consciousness… is a continuous monitoring and optimization of personal actions by means of intelligence”).
In other words, according to barehl, intelligence is defined via consciousness, and consciousness is defined via intelligence.
As we can clearly see, this definition is recursive, in other words, it is pointing to itself. --> "To define recursion, we must first define recursion."
Recursive definitions are meaningless by definition.
Recursive definitions do not match the scientific criteria.
Recursive definition is pure pseudoscience.
Circular argument is automatically a recursive by definition. Bellow is the simple proof.
Just compile and run these two programs and see if there is any difference between them in the final result.
Circular call of functions:
=======================
functionX()
{
functionY();
};
functionY()
{
functionX();
};
main()
{
functionX();
};
=======================
Recursive call of function:
=======================
functionX()
{
functionX();
};
main()
{
functionX();
};
=======================
First of all, it is important to note that many people have no clue whatsoever about what the word “scientific” means. This is due to the simple reason.
Universities have huge number of faculties which actually have nothing to do with science. As for example, many universities have “faculty of theology” or “faculty of literature”, and so on. And these “faculties” issue diplomas with academic degrees like “master”, “doctor”, “professor”, etc. And what is the activity of such “professors of theology”, what do they do? They study the superstitious-claptrap-writings called “sacred scriptures” and then debate each other about what did Jesus/Muhammad/Krishna/etc said and who is superior over whom – Jesus is superior to Muhammad or vice versa. They can debate whatever they want, however that is not science, this activity does not meet the scientific criteria. And then such people from universities with academic degrees write books, give lectures, talk on TV/radio, etc – they simply flood the society with their claptrap material. When average common people read/listen to this claptrap material they get the false impression that this material is “science” – and this is due simple reason: the authors of that claptrap material have scientific academic degrees. As the result of this, majority of the population are totally incapable to distinguish science from pseudoscience. As the result of this, they are totally incapable to detect circular/recursive definitions and they are totally incapable to understand that circular/recursive definitions are meaningless by definition. That is a huge problem in society.
If you could then you would have done that already a long time ago. It is obvious that barehl is unable to describe “consciousness” with a rigorous scientific definition due to the simple reason – nobody on the Earth was able to do that so far.
Here is the summary of the endeavors of the pseudoscientists trying to define “consciousness”.
1) What is the “consciousness”, how can we detect if object X has consciousness or not? --> Object X has consciousness ONLY IF it has awareness
=======================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
Consciousness is the quality or state of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself."
=======================
2) What is the “awareness”, how can do we detect if object X has awareness or not? --> Object X has awareness ONLY IF it has consciousness
=======================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awareness
Awareness is the state or ability to perceive, to feel, or to be conscious of events, objects, thoughts, emotions, or sensory patterns. In this level of consciousness, sense data can be confirmed by an observer without necessarily implying understanding.
=======================
Wow… you just look at that: 1) Object X has consciousness ONLY IF it has awareness, 2) Object X has awareness ONLY IF it has consciousness.
It is really amazing that such huge number of people do not have enough neurons in their brains to be capable to detect circular/recursive definitions which are meaningless by definition.
Last edited:
Donn
Philosopher
Thanks. My brother in law uses FPGAs, so I've heard about them. It's all way over my head.
Nice.
Thanks.
Okay, so those are examples of hardware doing stuff without software.
By now I gather that our OP has explained that they never meant software when they said software, but rather it's only an analogy for their cluster explanation which was supposed to be so good that it just made everything clear anyway, thus not requiring further analogy.
neuroclusterbrain
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2013
- Messages
- 148
There many experimental evidences which support Neurocluster Brain Model.
As it was already described in previous posts: one of the simplest experimental proofs of multiple autonomic neuroclusters residing in the brain is the analysis of features of the dream characters; another experimental proof is experiments of “spiritualistic séances” using thread with the attached needle method.
Another experimental proof is experiments with split-brain patients – bellow is the short description of such experiments.
Let’s raise a simple question: how many souls can be contained in one human body? Humanity did not possess tools and technologies which would allow to investigate this question up until the twentieth century. However in the late 1950s things has dramatically changed when neurosurgeons began experiments with the human brain. Some people have epilepsy. Epilepsy is a phenomenon when a small number of neurons in the brain excite themselves via positive feedback neural circuits which leads to the excitation of nearby neurons and this excessive hypersynchronous neuronal activity spreads through large areas of the brain. There are many ways to treat epilepsy however all these treatments share the same common working principle – in order to eliminate the epileptic seizures you need to suppress the excitement of neurons and you need to suppress the spread of the neural excitement through the large areas of the brain. However in some patients all known treatment methods fail and the patient continues to have frequent and strong epileptic seizures. In the late 1950s neurosurgeons decided to try out new drastic method for dealing with such extra hard epilepsy cases. The hypothesis of new treatment method was the following. Human brain consists of two hemispheres which are connected via link which is called corpus callosum. During the epileptic seizure the synchronous neuronal activity originates in one hemisphere and then via corpus callosum it reaches the another hemisphere thus spreading through the whole brain. If we would cut corpus callosum then synchronous neuronal activity which originated in one hemisphere would be stopped from spreading into another hemisphere and this would eliminate epileptic seizure. Several patients with hardest epilepsy cases were chosen to test out the hypothesis and corpus callosum was cut in these patients. Such patients who have their corpus callosum cut are called “split-brain patients”. The hypothesis of neurosurgeons was confirmed to be correct – the cutting of corpus callosum eliminated or greatly reduced epileptic seizures in split-brain patients. However experiments with split-brain patients revealed very interesting side effect of corpus callosum cutting. The left hemisphere controls the right side of the body and the right hemisphere controls the left side of the body. When interconnection between hemispheres (corpus callosum) is cut then both hemispheres begin to act autonomously from each other. For example, when split-brain sits near his wife, the left hand of the patient hugs and fondles the wife, however at the same time the right hand of the patient angrily beats the wife – different hemispheres of the split-brain patient have made different judgments towards the wife and both hemispheres act independently from each other. In other words, the cutting of corpus callosum created two(2) autonomous personalities, which think differently and make different decisions on the same subject and these decisions might be even diametrically opposite. Experiments with split-brain patients revealed that the cutting of corpus callosum produces two(2) autonomous personalities, two(2) autonomous consciousnesses, and for those who believe in the existence of soul - two(2) autonomous souls. Split-brain experiments revealed that one(1) human consciousness can be artificially divided into two(2) consciousnesses by simple cutting of corpus callosum.
When two hemispheres of the (healthy) brain are connected via corpus callosum link then such man is unable to accomplish two different independent tasks with two hands simultaneously because one hemisphere hinders another hemisphere by sending commands via corpus callosum link. For example, if a man takes a pencil into each of two hands and tries to draw two independent pictures with both hands simultaneously (for example a circle with one hand and a square with another hand) – the man will be unable to cope with such task. You can try doing that yourself and see if you will succeed. However when corpus callosum link is cut then after such surgery the man has no troubles to accomplish two different independent tasks with both hands simultaneously – as for example, drawing a circle with one hand and a square with another hand is an easy task for split-brain patient.
Here is the documentary movie which shows experiments with split-brain patient.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfGwsAdS9Dc
Severed Corpus Callosum.
Length: 10 minutes
Here are some more movies about split-brain experiments please:
http://neuroclusterbrain.com/split_brain_experiments_videos.html
dlorde
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 6,864
Nice one
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
They're brilliant devices, loads of fun, but basically just a large number of ordinary digital logic components in a handy package (where you get to connect up the components with a configuration file rather than hard-wiring them).
You could make an artificial neural network/cryptographic accelerator/signal processor with almost nothing but NAND gates if you wanted to. An FPGA is just (much) more convenient.
dlorde
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 6,864
Building a neural net is not the equivalent of programming, it is, if anything, engineering; you can program a digital system to behave as a neural network, but the neural network itself is trained, not programmed.
Someone who trains a neural network is a trainer; they are often programmers too, but not of the network.
Not exactly. A program is software, but software isn't necessarily a program.
Well yes and no; the concept of software isn't that complicated, you just have to understand its range of application - it's consensual meaning - and avoid equivocating, or using the wrong words, or making inappropriate analogies. The same goes for 'programming' and 'programmer'.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Seeing as how the odds are highly against someone understanding this maybe we ought to call it NeuroClusterLuck.
Donn
Philosopher
That's the odd thing. The style, the flavour of the writing; it's not trying to teach, nor to clarify.
Perhaps it's simply a language and culture barrier. I don't know. All I know is that with each passing post, the picture gets worse.
I want to get up on the roof, twiddle the aerial. Bash the tv.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
dlorde
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 6,864
Yes, absolutely. Ironic that good software engineering is about the clear, succinct, efficient, and effective communication of ideas...
neuroclusterbrain
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2013
- Messages
- 148
We have never said that “schizophrenia is caused by competing personalities”, we have never claimed that due to the simple reason – the term “schizophrenia” is very broad and loose and ill-defined.
The term “schizophrenia” is as broad and loose as the word “illness”. There are myriads of different diseases/sicknesses, each of which have completely different underlying nature, and all these myriads of different diseases/sicknesses can be labeled with the same term “illness”.
Exactly the same situation is with the term “schizophrenia” – almost any condition which deviates from the “norm” could be labeled as “schizophrenia”.
Here are some documentary movies about “schizophrenia” and about psychiatry:
http://neuroclusterbrain.com/psychiatry_videos.html
So far barehl was unable to provide scientific definition of the term “consciousness”.
So far barehl was unable to provide any proof that he himself has “consciousness”.
Barehl intends to write “one book chapter” about his traditional circular/recursive meaningless pseudodefinitions. Ok, good, we are waiting for barehl’s “one book chapter” containing circular/recursive meaningless pseudodefinitions.
Let’s raise the simple question:
Who are those people who think that “it has never been shown that severing the corpus collosum creates two distinctive personalities”?
Who are those people who think that “nor has it ever been shown that there are any actual cases of multiple personality disorder”?
These people are exactly the same people who have strong religious fanatic faith that they posses “consciousness”, isn’t it?
These people are exactly the same people who are unable to provide scientific definition of the term “consciousness”, these people are exactly the same people who are unable to provide the list of criteria (the list of features) which would allow to determine if object X has consciousness or not, and these people are exactly the same people who are unable to provide any proof that they themselves have “consciousness”.
When a man uses a term/word which he is unable to define then it is quite obvious that such man does not understand himself what he is talking about, it is obvious that his speech is meaningless by definition.
And what is the scientific value of the judgment of these people about split-brain and MPD patients? The scientific value is zero, because they are not qualified to make the judgment – they have very strong religious fanatic faith that they posses “indivisible-single-consciousness”. They are scared to death by the idea that other agents/entities might be present in their own brain. That fierce fear of the possibility of other agents/entities being present in their own brain drives these people to fight until “the last drop of blood” defending the religious dogma of “indivisible-single-consciousness”.
It is important to note here that different people have dreams of very different complexity.
As for example, in our experience we have encountered one very rare case – a man who was over 60 years old claimed that during his entire lifetime he has never seen a human/animal in his dreams, and then we asked him “so what do you see in your dreams?”, and his answer was “in my dreams I see various geometric shapes which constantly transform from one form into another”, and we asked him again “are you really sure that see only transforming geometric shapes and that you have never seen human or animal in your dreams during your entire lifetime?”, and he said “yes, I have never seen human or animal in my dreams during my entire lifetime”.
It is very interesting to find out what is the percentage in population of such people who have never seen human or animal in their dreams during their entire lifetimes. We have encountered only one such case in our experience. Maybe anybody can report similar cases? Please raise your hands and please respond all readers who also have never seen human or animal in your dreams during your entire lifetime.
It looks that barehl might be one of such rare cases due to the simple reason – barehl claims that “dream characters do not have reaction/analysis/memory/perception”. Well, it is very possible that dream-characters personally in barehl’s dream are as dumb as barehl has described them – however that is the personal experience of barehl and that does not mean that in other peoples dreams the dream-characters are also as dumb as in the case barehl. Actually there massive reports of contrary cases – people report that dream-characters in their dreams do have reaction/analysis/memory/perception and it is even possible to carry meaningful conversation with dream-characters and to get meaningful information from these dream-characters, and some of that information even might be confirmed as true after awakening (one such classic example was described in earlier posting about finding the lost keys after getting information from dream-character about the location of lost keys).
It is very easy to prove experimentally that dream-characters do have their own “awareness/consciousness/soul/spirit/etc”. The experiment setup is very easy. Next time when you go to sleep and when you have a dream and when you see some dream-character-of-human-form (father/mother/brother/sister/friend/relative/etc) in your dream, go closer to that dream-character and ask him a simple question: “do you have you own awareness/consciousness/soul/spirit/etc?” and then wait for the answer from that dream-character.
Let’s raise a simple question: who is the best expert to decide whether dream-character has “awareness/consciousness” or not?
The answer is obvious: the best expert in this question is the dream-character himself.
So your job is very simple – just ask the dream-character himself whether he has “awareness/consciousness” or not.
It is interesting to note that all “proofs” which pseudoscientists are able to provide trying to prove that they themselves have “consciousness” always can be simplified/reduced into the following scenario: “I tell you that I have consciousness. How do you dare not to believe what I say? I tell you that I have awareness and I have consciousness. You must believe what I say – you must believe that I have consciousness.”
Pseudoscientists say that they have “consciousness” and that is the only “proof” that are able to provide.
And now go and do the described experiment – ask the dream-character himself about whether he has “consciousness” or not.
It looks like barehl will be unable to carry out this experiment, because dream-characters in barehl’s dreams are as dumb as stones. However other people might be much more successful in carrying out this simple experiment.
We will remind that the many texts of so called “sacred scriptures” were written under the dictation of the “dream-characters” (==autonomic neuroclusters) which were capable to manifest themselves during the awakening state.
The typical classic example of autonomic neurocluster is so called “archangel Gabriel” which dictated the text of Quran to Muhammad.
=======================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad
The Quran is the central religious text of Islam. Muslims believe that it represents the words of God revealed to Muhammad through the archangel Gabriel.
=======================
Donn
Philosopher
Who is "we"? Are you a cluster of writers?
Kid Eager
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,296
Who *all* can't spell, format, nor punctuate correctly? I doubt it...