Nuclear FUSION reactor being developed at Lockheed for powered fighter jet

2018-04-01 Thread agrayson2000
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-30/lockheed-martin-patents-nuclear-fusion-powered-fighter-jet

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Why matter, anti-matter imbalance?

2018-04-01 Thread Lawrence Crowell


On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 2:09:29 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 11:23:27 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> A standard neutrino has isospin charge for SU(2) so the neutrino and 
>> anti-neutrino have opposite weak interaction isospin charge. This is 
>> transformed by the C operator in the CP discrete symmetry. We might then 
>> expect if Majorana neutrinos exist that ν and ν-bar (neutrino and 
>> antineutrino with isospin charge) can interact with ν + ν-bar → Z  → 2ν_m, 
>> so the intermediary particle Z = W^0 has charge Q = T_3 + 1/2Y by the Gell 
>> Mann-Nishijima formula with Q = 0 and vanishing hypercharge Y = 0 so T^3 = 
>> 0. This isospin charges of the neutrino and antineutrino cancel to generate 
>> a Z which might if the quantum channel is available decay into two Majorana 
>> neutrinos.
>>
>> In a standard weak nuclear decay if Majorana neutrinos are produced there 
>> is no net generation of weak isospin charge. The electron and positron have 
>> opposite isospin charges and so a weak interaction decay that would produce 
>> Majorana neutrinos are then expected to be beta-less decay processes. This 
>> experiment has found none and put a bound on this process as 1:10^{24}, 
>> which is pretty small. 
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> *Can you explain in relatively simple terms why finding the sought-after 
> signature would explain the asymmetry in matter/anti-matter? TIA, AG*
>

It is that the Majorana neutrino being its own anti-particle is then as a 
particle giving preference to the particle states instead of the 
anti-particle states. This would be particularly if we consider the C as a 
symmetry on electric charge, but not isospin. Weak interactions break CP 
symmetry and as a result this means Majorana neutrinos will by this CP 
violation prefer particles over anti-particles.

LC
 

>
>
> On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 6:39:19 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>>
>> https://newatlas.com/are-neutrinos-majorana-fermions/54036/
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Why matter, anti-matter imbalance?

2018-04-01 Thread John Clark
​
On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 3:09 PM,  wrote:


*​> ​Can you explain in relatively simple terms why finding the
> sought-after signature would explain the asymmetry in matter/anti-matter?
> TIA, AG*


There is a theory that neutrinos are Majorana particles, if so they are
their own anti particle and the conservation of lepton number law is
untrue, and that could explain why there is more matter than anti matter in
the universe. In beta decay a neutron turns into a proton and emits a
electron and a anti-neutrino, a electron has a lepton number of +1 and for
a anti-neutrino  its -1 so equal numbers of matter and anti-matter
particles are created. Sometimes elements undergo double beta decay in
which 2 neutrons emit 2 electrons and 2 anti-neutrinos, its very rare but
it has been observed. What people are looking for is something called
Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay, if it exists one neutron would annihilate
the other producing pure energy, so 2 neutrons would decay into 2 protons
and 2 electrons (moving with a bit more energy than normal) and no
anti-neutrinos, so the number of matter particles would increase but the
number of anti-matter particles would not. Nobody has seen Neutrinoless
Double Beta Decay yet but they're still looking, we do know that if it
exists the half life of an atom undergoing Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay
is greater than 1.9*10^25 years. If somebody does find it somebody is going
to get a Nobel Prize for explaining the asymmetry between matter and
anti-matter.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Why matter, anti-matter imbalance?

2018-04-01 Thread agrayson2000


On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 11:23:27 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> A standard neutrino has isospin charge for SU(2) so the neutrino and 
> anti-neutrino have opposite weak interaction isospin charge. This is 
> transformed by the C operator in the CP discrete symmetry. We might then 
> expect if Majorana neutrinos exist that ν and ν-bar (neutrino and 
> antineutrino with isospin charge) can interact with ν + ν-bar → Z  → 2ν_m, 
> so the intermediary particle Z = W^0 has charge Q = T_3 + 1/2Y by the Gell 
> Mann-Nishijima formula with Q = 0 and vanishing hypercharge Y = 0 so T^3 = 
> 0. This isospin charges of the neutrino and antineutrino cancel to generate 
> a Z which might if the quantum channel is available decay into two Majorana 
> neutrinos.
>
> In a standard weak nuclear decay if Majorana neutrinos are produced there 
> is no net generation of weak isospin charge. The electron and positron have 
> opposite isospin charges and so a weak interaction decay that would produce 
> Majorana neutrinos are then expected to be beta-less decay processes. This 
> experiment has found none and put a bound on this process as 1:10^{24}, 
> which is pretty small. 
>
> LC
>

*Can you explain in relatively simple terms why finding the sought-after 
signature would explain the asymmetry in matter/anti-matter? TIA, AG*

On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 6:39:19 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> https://newatlas.com/are-neutrinos-majorana-fermions/54036/
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Something that should scare you ...

2018-04-01 Thread agrayson2000


On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 2:53:13 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 11:59:24 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 11:39:44 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 9:34:53 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

 On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 2:46:12 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/30/2018 1:18 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 12:40:05 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote: 
>>
>>
>> https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-27/china-deploys-skynet-facial-recognition-can-compare-3-billion-faces-second
>>
>
> This is Philip K. Dick stuff, such as *Minority Report*.  We heading 
> into a future where everything we do and where we go will be logged in, 
> and 
> I suspect in 20 years this may include thoughts as well. All the talk 
> about 
> AI and the rest ignores what I see as the much more world changing 
> prospect 
> of having our brains increasingly wired into the internet. I suspect 
> before 
> long the term thought-crime might come to have hard and real meaning.
>
>
> That's essentially what China's proposed "social score" will be.
>
> Brent
>

 I did not read the zerohedge article, for I regard that website to be 
 pretty high on hype and low on facts. 

>>>
>>> Here's an insightful article on Zerohedge on the Korean situation that 
>>> you won't find anywhere else. AG
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-30/xi-jinping-and-kim-jong-un-make-korea-united-again
>>>
>>
>> *Your methodology for ZH is virtually identical to your approach to the 
>> UFO phenomenon. You can't find, or studiously avoid, the diamond in the 
>> rough. AG*
>>
>
>
>
> *Another informative article about France planning to enter Syria as US is 
> leaving ... only to be found on ... ZEROHEDGE. AG 
> https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-31/france-send-military-forces-syria-trump-prepares-withdraw-turkey-furious
>  
> *
>




*Final installment; Buchanan's article on why Trump would be hugely unwise 
to trash the Iran agreement. I have posted these articles to show the 
value, IMO, of Zerohedge as a source of insightful news. The site is highly 
biased against the investigation of Russia, but one can just ignore those 
articles. When it comes to China, the articles generally cite The Global 
Times, the unofficial mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party. 
AGhttps://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-27/pat-buchanan-asks-trump-assembling-war-cabinet*

>
>>>
>>> The Chinese SkyNet is something known from other sources. The world will 
 doubtless have many competing surveillance sites and in effect information 
 zones of control. You can count on the United States being pretty big on 
 this. Corporations will have theirs as well.

 LC 

>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: How to live forever

2018-04-01 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 7:43 AM, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:

>> It's not the wind its diffusion that send the signal on its way, which
>> means exactly where the signal is sent is NOT critical and the time it
>> takes to transmit it can't be critical either. So you think technology will
>> find that duplicating this meager feat will be insuperably difficult. Why?
>> Sending a signal with a tiny informational content very very slowly and
>> successfully hitting a HUGE target seems to me to be the easiest part of
>> the entire thing.
>
>

*>  I don’t think it’s impossible,*

Forget impossible, overall mind uploading might be difficult but the part
of it that you're talking about would not only be possible it would be
easy.

> *> but if you want a neural implant to work like the biological
> equivalent, it must communicate with neurones via neurotransmitters,*

You think only a chemical could send that signal, and specifically only the
particular chemical that Homo Sapiens happens to use will work? WHY?

> > it must modulate it’s responses according to circulating hormones, it
> must develop new connections and prune old connections, it must upregulate
> and downregulate its responsiveness to neurotransmitters according to its
> history


 There are two ways to accomplish this:

1) A neural net computer could do it directly, and that’s the way it would
probably be done.

2) A conventional computer with a Von Neumann architecture could simulate
a neural net computer, that would slow things way down but if
Nanotechnology was used the increase in the speed of the hardware would be
so enormous it would still think faster than you or me.

 John K Clark

>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: How to live forever

2018-04-01 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> *> It may just be a bit like saying because an airplane can fly that it is
> equivalent to a bird.*


I think the nouns "airplane" and "bird" are not equivalent, however the
same adjective "flying" can be used to describe what both those two nouns
are doing, and I think my third grade English teacher was entirely wrong
when she said "I" was a pronoun, it is not, it is an adjective describing
how matter behaves when it is organized in a johnkclarkian way. That's why
I also think its a bit like saying the 4  my calculator produces when it
adds 2+2 is the same 4 that I produce when I add those two numbers in my
head. I think  all that because I don't believe the Sacred Atoms Theory is
sound .

 John K Clark


>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: How to live forever

2018-04-01 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 at 8:26 am, John Clark  wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 5:50 PM, Stathis Papaioannou 
> wrote:
>
> *​> ​The problem is the biological neurones only understand smoke signals.
>> *
>
>
> Not so, we already understand that some neurotransmitters send smoke
> signals that excite neurons while others send a inhibitory signal.
>
> ​> ​
>> Not only that, but the smoke signals change depending on how the wind is
>> blowing,
>
>
> It's not the wind its diffusion that send the signal on its way, which
> means exactly where the signal is sent is* NOT* critical and the time it
> takes to transmit it can't be critical either. So you think technology will
> find that duplicating this meager feat will be insuperably difficult. Why?
> Sending a signal with a tiny informational content very very slowly and
> successfully hitting a HUGE target seems to me to be the easiest part of
> the entire thing.
>

I don’t think it’s impossible, but if you want a neural implant to work
like the biological equivalent, it must communicate with neurones via
neurotransmitters, it must modulate it’s responses according to circulating
hormones, it must develop new connections and prune old connections, it
must upregulate and downregulate its responsiveness to neurotransmitters
according to its history and multiple local factors, and probably other
things that we don’t even know about. So what us needed is not just a
little computer, but complex nanomachinery. It might be easier to simulate
an entire brain than make an implant.

> --
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Why matter, anti-matter imbalance?

2018-04-01 Thread Lawrence Crowell
A standard neutrino has isospin charge for SU(2) so the neutrino and 
anti-neutrino have opposite weak interaction isospin charge. This is 
transformed by the C operator in the CP discrete symmetry. We might then 
expect if Majorana neutrinos exist that ν and ν-bar (neutrino and 
antineutrino with isospin charge) can interact with ν + ν-bar → Z  → 2ν_m, 
so the intermediary particle Z = W^0 has charge Q = T_3 + 1/2Y by the Gell 
Mann-Nishijima formula with Q = 0 and vanishing hypercharge Y = 0 so T^3 = 
0. This isospin charges of the neutrino and antineutrino cancel to generate 
a Z which might if the quantum channel is available decay into two Majorana 
neutrinos.

In a standard weak nuclear decay if Majorana neutrinos are produced there 
is no net generation of weak isospin charge. The electron and positron have 
opposite isospin charges and so a weak interaction decay that would produce 
Majorana neutrinos are then expected to be beta-less decay processes. This 
experiment has found none and put a bound on this process as 1:10^{24}, 
which is pretty small. 

LC

On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 6:39:19 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> https://newatlas.com/are-neutrinos-majorana-fermions/54036/
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: How to live forever

2018-04-01 Thread Lawrence Crowell
It may just be a bit like saying because an airplane can fly that it is 
equivalent to a bird.

LC

On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 6:52:43 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 6:29 PM, Lawrence Crowell <
> goldenfield...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> ​
>> >  Take LSD or psilocybin mushrooms and what enters the brain are 
>> chemical compounds that interact with neural ligand gates. The effect is a 
>> change in the perception of consciousness.
>>
>
> LSD is not magical, it is a physical substance that changes the chemistry 
> of the brain which in turn changes the way information in the brain is 
> process which changes observed intelligent behavior. So the type of 
> intelligence displayed depends on how something physical, like matter, is 
> arranged. As for consciousness LSD may effect that too but I don't know 
> that for a fact because I've never taken LSD, although I have heard people 
> make noises with their mouth that sound like "it changed my consciousness". 
>  
>  
>
>> *​>​The idea one could set up a computer neural network, upload some data 
>> file from a brain scan and that this would be a completely conscious person 
>> is frankly absurd. *
>
>
> ​If a ​
> ​computer being conscious is absurd why isn't 3 pounds of grey goo being 
> conscious also absurd? Is there some new law of physics I haven't head of 
> that only that only squishy things can be conscious?  ​
>
>  John K Clark
>
>  
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: How to live forever

2018-04-01 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 12:29 AM, Lawrence Crowell
 wrote:
> On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 2:32:06 PM UTC-6, telmo_menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 10:17 PM, Lawrence Crowell
>>  wrote:
>> > You would have to replicate then not only the dynamics of neurons, but
>> > every
>> > biomolecule in the neurons, and don't forget about the oligoastrocytes
>> > and
>> > other glial cells. Many enzymes for instance to multi-state systems, say
>> > in
>> > a simple case where a single amino acid residue of phosphorylated or
>> > unphosphorylated, and in effect are binary switching units. To then make
>> > this work you now need to have the brain states mapped out down to the
>> > molecular level, and further to have their combinatorial relationships
>> > mapped. Biomolecules also behave in water, so you have to model all the
>> > water molecules. Given the brain has around 10^{25} or a few moles of
>> > molecules the number of possible combinations might be on the order of
>> > 10^{10^{25}} this is a daunting task. Also your computer has to
>> > accurately
>> > encode the dynamics of molecules -- down to the quantum mechanics of
>> > their
>> > bonds.
>> >
>> > This is another way of saying that biological systems, even that of a
>> > basic
>> > prokaryote, are beyond our current abilities to simulate. You can't just
>> > hand wave away the enormous problems with just simulating a bacillus,
>> > let
>> > alone something like the brain. Now of course one can do some
>> > simulations to
>> > learn about the brain in a model system, but this is far from mapping a
>> > brain and its conscious state into a computer.
>>
>> Well maybe, but this is just you guessing.
>> Nobody knows the necessary level of detail.
>>
>> Telmo.
>
>
> Take LSD or psilocybin mushrooms and what enters the brain are chemical
> compounds that interact with neural ligand gates. The effect is a change in
> the perception of consciousness. Then if we load coarse grained brain states
> into a computer that ignores lots of fine grained detail, will that result
> in something different? Hell yeah! The idea one could set up a computer
> neural network, upload some data file from a brain scan and that this would
> be a completely conscious person is frankly absurd.

The molecules of LSD, psilocybin, etc have specific binding affinities
to various neuroreceptors. Ok.

This is a very important point and I completely sympathize with you
bringing it up. Current artificial neural network models are extreme
simplifications. We could say that they model a brain that only uses
Glutamate (excitatory signals) and GABA (inhibitory signals). The
other neurotransmitters are responsible for a lot of interesting
stuff, namely learning. It is telling that contemporary ANNs resort to
a blunt, centralized algorithm for that part (backpropagation).

But how much information is contained in a molecule of LSD? And how
much information is necessary to define a receptor site? Imagine a
model similar to what John Holland suggested, where you define these
things as strings of letters. Let's say with an alphabet of four
letters (a, b, c, d) -- because nature seems to like that. So we could
have a drug that is abaccaba and we could have a receptor site that is
abbccacb. Then use edit distance to determine their affinity. How many
letters would we need to model something with the complexity of the
human brain? Not a lot I bet.

My point is: there is no reason to assume that we have to go into
extreme detail, such as molecular interactions with water or quantum
states. Maybe we do, but the stuff you allude to could still be way
simpler than that from an information theory perspective.

Telmo.


> LC
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: How to live forever

2018-04-01 Thread Telmo Menezes
Hey Mindey,

On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 11:12 PM, Mindey I.  wrote:
> Why not to just define yourself, and then try to re-run yourself? If you
> have a mathematical definition of your own self, you are already close to
> living forever as a running process based on that definition.

Easier said than done might be the understatement of the millennium here :)

> Personally, when I try to define myself, I bump into memories of strong
> sense of curiosity, making me nearly cry of desire to know Everything.
>
> Maybe most of us here on the "Everything-List" are like that. Maybe we're
> equivalent?

I don't know if my curiosity is as strong as yours, I think it's
impossible to know. I think you are being reductive about yourself, no
matter how amazing curiosity is.

Telmo.

> On 31 March 2018 at 20:32, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 10:17 PM, Lawrence Crowell
>>  wrote:
>> > You would have to replicate then not only the dynamics of neurons, but
>> > every
>> > biomolecule in the neurons, and don't forget about the oligoastrocytes
>> > and
>> > other glial cells. Many enzymes for instance to multi-state systems, say
>> > in
>> > a simple case where a single amino acid residue of phosphorylated or
>> > unphosphorylated, and in effect are binary switching units. To then make
>> > this work you now need to have the brain states mapped out down to the
>> > molecular level, and further to have their combinatorial relationships
>> > mapped. Biomolecules also behave in water, so you have to model all the
>> > water molecules. Given the brain has around 10^{25} or a few moles of
>> > molecules the number of possible combinations might be on the order of
>> > 10^{10^{25}} this is a daunting task. Also your computer has to
>> > accurately
>> > encode the dynamics of molecules -- down to the quantum mechanics of
>> > their
>> > bonds.
>> >
>> > This is another way of saying that biological systems, even that of a
>> > basic
>> > prokaryote, are beyond our current abilities to simulate. You can't just
>> > hand wave away the enormous problems with just simulating a bacillus,
>> > let
>> > alone something like the brain. Now of course one can do some
>> > simulations to
>> > learn about the brain in a model system, but this is far from mapping a
>> > brain and its conscious state into a computer.
>>
>> Well maybe, but this is just you guessing.
>> Nobody knows the necessary level of detail.
>>
>> Telmo.
>>
>> > LC
>> >
>> >
>> > On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 10:31:56 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Lawrence Crowell
>> >>  wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> > Yes, and if you replace the entire brain with technology the peg leg
>> >>> > is
>> >>> > expanded into an entire Pinocchio. Would the really be conscious? It
>> >>> > is the
>> >>> > case as well that so much of our mental processing does involve
>> >>> > hormone
>> >>> > reception and a range of other data inputs from other receptors and
>> >>> > ligands.
>> >>
>> >> I see nothing sacred in hormones, I don't see the slightest reason why
>> >> they or any neurotransmitter would be especially difficult to simulate
>> >> through computation, because chemical messengers are not a sign of
>> >> sophisticated design on nature's part, rather it's an example of
>> >> Evolution's
>> >> bungling. If you need to inhibit a nearby neuron there are better ways
>> >> of
>> >> sending that signal then launching a GABA molecule like a message in a
>> >> bottle thrown into the sea and waiting ages for it to diffuse to its
>> >> random
>> >> target.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not interested in chemicals only the information they contain, I
>> >> want
>> >> the information to get transmitted from cell to cell by the best method
>> >> and
>> >> so I would not send smoke signals if I had a fiber optic cable. The
>> >> information content in each molecular message must be tiny, just a few
>> >> bits
>> >> because only about 60 neurotransmitters such as acetylcholine,
>> >> norepinephrine and GABA are known, even if the true number is 100 times
>> >> greater (or a million times for that matter) the information content
>> >> ofeach
>> >> signal must be tiny. Also, for the long range stuff, exactly which
>> >> neuron
>> >> receives the signal can not be specified because it relies on a random
>> >> process, diffusion. The fact that it's slow as molasses in February
>> >> does not
>> >> add to its charm.
>> >>
>> >> If your job is delivering packages and all the packages are very small
>> >> and
>> >> your boss doesn't care who you give them to as long as it's on the
>> >> correct
>> >> continent and you have until the next ice age to get the work done,
>> >> then you
>> >> don't have a very difficult profession. I see no reason why simulating
>> >> that
>> >> anachronism  would present the slightest difficulty. Artificial neurons
>> >> could be made to