User talk:Graeme E. Smith/Introduction to The Religion of Unit Field

Hi, I need to read it a couple of times I guess to get a better understanding of the message. However, I find it difficult not to add my thoughts on space and time as well as dimensions.

In my view space and time arembihunbbvnjgjkfj created by motion. Motion is created by a force that disturbs the existing symmetry of forces which is perceived as non-moving objects in space frozen in time. Now there are a couple of actors here: the observer who may exercise an impact on the environment observed, the actor who exerts a force to break the symmetry.

The concepts of space and time, if represented, indicate two directions, and therefore a 2D surface. When movement starts, both space and time go in one direction each and when an observer wants to identify an increment of those moves, he/she has to freeze the picture of that 2D input. There are no more dimensions apart from those two, only directions. A new "dimension" is just a change in the direction of movement.

You cannot identify time in space, just movement. But space and time may also be interpreted as form and content. We assume that time is linear and as we move in space, we also move in time. Physicists say that time started when space was started at the moment of the Big Bang and the universe has been extending ever since in space. The problem is that we assume that both time and space are infinite, yet we also think that they had a beginning, a starting point or an end, if you like, and that does not add up.

Surely space seems to be the form and time to be the content. We experience bodies in space and we know that there is no vacuum out there, even though anti-matter or dark energy or what-nots are not visible. This means that space is form, and time is content. Or: Space is an object, and Time is a property as you would have guessed. This is true of anything existing whether inside or outside your mind, these concepts are also objects created by us and they have properties, e.g. a life cycle such as defined by the date they are conceived to the date they are gone. Now whether you believe in creation or not, you may accept that in your experience all existing items or objects have a life and thus they are not infinite or eternal despite the fact that we may think of the very totality as boundless and indefinite, for reasons among others that we do not know or see that far. In fact, we can look back in the past to see the track that time past has left on the world, but the further we look, the more impossible it becomes to assess anything definite, that is any form. What you get there is called chaos and timelessness.

But time may also be thought of as form. If time is form, then movement is content. Time is added or filled up by movements of unit size or measure, just as the tick of a handle of a clock does. Thus the unit of passing (time) is movement. Space may then be identified as a sequence of movements either in the same direction or in changing directions either regularly or irregularly of a moving object. The boundaries of time are marked by those movements of the object in space until it ceases to move. But no movement may be conceived without some energy, force or inertia to cause movement. Thus we must have the concept of mass and energy to be included here too. Suppose that space is form and energy is content, objects are visible in space they have common boundaries with the forces of non visible energy that keeps them in place. Which is the same as to say that here mass is form, and energy is content, and they are said to be symmetrical, because normally you have mass of some material to create an object (anything visible) and energy to keep that mass in place or shape. This swap or reciprocity is made possible by the fact that objects have a dual nature subject to the perspective you chose to look at them from, and also because time and space are related so that when time starts, an object moves in space, or when an object is born in space its time starts up. But without marking a start point in time and space you are lost in motion driven and directed by energies.

This is not a religion, just a humble opinion. Genezistan 16:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't sweat the fact that I call Unit Field a Religion it is a personal belief system, and so My own personal religion, and no one else is expected to join.


 * You make some interesting points, but I think you are missing the nature of Unit Field, just a little bit. A Unit Field doesn't act, until it is opposed, and then defines a repulsive field because Unit fields are mutually exclusive and can't exist in the exact same time and place as other unit fields. The repulsive field acts on the chord between the two unit fields involved, and all unit fields in the Universe are, in opposition to all other unit fields in the universe, except where that opposition is blocked in some manner. Thus the mere existence of two unit fields is all that is needed to define time and space. If only because the nature of a unit field once it is opposed is to be repulsed, and thus put into motion.


 * There is however, an aspect to this repulsive framework where space is a function of motion, in that no matter where a third Unit field comes into the Universe, it will automatically result in motion in a new direction, virtually demanding a higher dimensional structure of space. The idea therefore becomes that the local complexity of space is a function of the number of Unit fields that are interacting. I am not sure what the function would be, but I suggest that there might be both a local complexity of space and a Universal complexity of space, depending on the ability of some configurations of space, to isolate clusters of unit fields.


 * Quantums of Energy are originally associated with Unit Fields, and are probably a function of the field strength, making this a form of Quantum Field Theory as well as a dark energy theory.
 * Entropy is probably the expression of the mutual exclusion field acting to try to expand the Universe in all directions at once. Failure to do so, is probably caused by knots in space time that limit the ability of Unit fields to directly oppose each other. As a result of these knots in space-time, some energy is temporarily delayed in its flowing from high potential to low potential, creating energy storage structures that are somewhat determined in their complexity by the nature of the space-time knot that protects them from entropy.


 * Mass, is a form of energy, that probably involves the tumbling of a cluster of Unit Fields at about the speed of light, in two dimensions, which is why most forms of mass have at least three dimensions. The forces that draw mass together, are in turn caused by the dimensionality of space, acting to create locations with reduced force, that the ambient force of the Universe then tries to fill causing currents within the Unit Field Ether. The currents are attracted to the reduced field location, and as a result all other forces in the Universe, are attractive rather than repulsive. Because the attractive forces have different dimensional factors in their structural elements, they have different dimensionality depending on the complexity of the field that creates the local areas with reduced force. I haven't done the math so don't expect me to have any formulae for you.--Graeme E. Smith 22:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Do not take me wrong, but now I would ,like to proeed step by step:

1. A Unit Field doesn't act, until it is opposed, Q: What is it opposed by?

2. and then defines a repulsive field because Unit fields are mutually exclusive and can't exist in the exact same time and place as other unit fields.

C: This sounds like Unit Field being "Something existing" created by another something existing but opposing entity, which is then non existing in logic.

3. The repulsive field acts on the chord between the two unit fields involved, and all unit fields in the Universe are, in opposition to all other unit fields in the universe, except where that opposition is blocked in some manner. Thus the mere existence of two unit fields is all that is needed to define time and space. If only because the nature of a unit field once it is opposed is to be repulsed, and thus put into motion.

C: This is the generalization of existence and non existence, which indeed comes before just at the same time as time and space.

4. There is however, an aspect to this repulsive framework where space is a function of motion, in that no matter where a third Unit field comes into the Universe,

Q: Is there a case where space is not a function of motion?

5. it will automatically result in motion in a new direction, virtually demanding a higher dimensional structure of space.

C: Yes, motion has the proeprty of direction and when direction is changed we assume to enter another dimension. But I believe there is only one dimension, and directions are not dimensions. Think of number systems, they cheat you....

6. The idea therefore becomes that the local complexity of space is a function of the number of Unit fields that are interacting. I am not sure what the function would be, but I suggest that there might be both a local complexity of space and a Universal complexity of space, depending on the ability of some configurations of space, to isolate clusters of unit fields.

Q: how come you discuss local and universal without defining what makes it local and universal?

7. Quantums of Energy are originally associated with Unit Fields, and are probably a function of the field strength, making this a form of Quantum Field Theory as well as a dark energy theory.

Q: Energy is then the only existing entity, in quantum forms, which is a bit of a problem, because it is either a form or a content, or if it both, then we have two aspects to look at it, which is alright and we are back to the concept of something existing being equal to energy 8. Entropy is probably the expression of the mutual exclusion field acting to try to expand the Universe in all directions at once.

Q: Would that exlain the Big Bang theory?

9. Failure to do so, is probably caused by knots in space time that limit the ability of Unit fields to directly oppose each other. As a result of these knots in space-time, some energy is temporarily delayed in its flowing from high potential to low potential, creating energy storage structures that are somewhat determined in their complexity by the nature of the space-time knot that protects them from entropy.

Q: What are these knots (metafores)?

10. Mass, is a form of energy, that probably involves the tumbling of a cluster of Unit Fields about the speed of light, in two dimensions, which is why most forms of mass have at least three dimensions.

Q: mass=form of energy form of mass=energy? does energy have dimensions?

11. The forces that draw mass together, are in turn caused by the dimensionality of space, acting to create locations with reduced force, that the ambient force of the Universe then tries to fill causing currents within the Unit Field Ether. The currents are attracted to the reduced field location, and as a result all other forces in the Universe, are attractive rather than repulsive. Because the attractive forces have different dimensional factors in their structural elements, they have different dimensionality depending on the complexity of the field that creates the local areas with reduced force. I haven't done the math so don't expect me to have any formulae for you.

C: So we have forces in action. What would the ambient force of the universe be? What are the structural elements of the forces? Do not worry about the maths

Respecftully yours

Genezistan 04:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

some answers
You will have to bear with me, because no one has ever analyzed my theory before, and asked questions. But I will try to answer.

Q: What is it opposed by


 * Good Question, shows you are thinking not just rejecting me. Consider the case of a single Unit field. If we define a single unit field as being a phase during which we can have an unopposed force (As long as there are no other unit fields in the Universe to oppose it) then a Unit field in a pristine universe has no opposition, hence if we apply the law of inertia, we can suppose that it has no movement and therefore time and space are at least unrequired and therefore undefined.


 * A unit field has then phases. What makes them change their phases, if at all? What I am getting at that by defintion we need to define the boundaries of anyting we talk about, including a unit field. The only real boundaries are spacetime parameters, so without them we may be unable to pinpoint the existence of a single unit field, especially if it rests somewhere (has inertia). My problem is the same with the Big Bang moment....


 * Opposition results in a phase change from an unopposed field to a force. At the Unit Field Level of Physics, if it can be called physics, accelleration is likely more prevalent than equilibrium because Unit Fields have no mass of their own, until it is supplied by velocity effects. Thus they can accellerate up to high speeds very quickly with very little energy.


 * Now, lets look at the simple case of a Universe that contains two Unit Fields. Each Unit field has its own Inertial Frame, but because the field is opposed, a force is created that causes the inertial frames to move apart, hence we can say that the force is repulsive, and the Unit fields are opposed to each other, and that there is movement, and thus a need for time and space to exist to explain that movement. It is the Mutual Exclusion clause that causes the opposition and thus the force, and thus the movement, and thus the increase in complexity of space.


 * What way are they opposed? In space? In phase or other property?


 * Yes, good question... Mutual Exclusion at the subspace level creates space?


 * So the short answer, since I have started with a pristine universe, is another Unit Field.

C: This sounds like Unit Field being "Something Existing" created by another something existing but opposed entity, which is then not existing in logic.


 * Yeah, I know. But you were interested in Beginnings so let us ask an important question about beginnings. Where did the first "Thing" come from?


 * I guess that is not a real question. Multiplicity is beyond us, and we learn numbers (By rote learning) to have an internal template for enumerating and giving account of the objects of our interest. We deal with things (objects) as form and content, and a form is always one. A number is a form too. But a form is also quantity and quality, a quantity of one and a quality of one.


 * We do not add numbers, especially not in 2D, what we do is replace them as a result of moving an increment distance on the template. We have no way to know what the first thing was or where and when, but we know through rote learning that there is such a thing as a first one on the number line, an artifact to aid our memory in various number systems.


 * I don't know if I would say that it is not a real question but it might have been rhetorical. It's just that in my mind view, if you are looking for beginnings you don't want to miss the Origin.


 * Assuming there was a "First" thing, there is no other answer than it came from nowhere, in essence there not being any "Where" for it to come from before space came into existence.


 * That is what I guessed. But I call nowhere as things beyond human comprehension and experience and testing for falsification.


 * Good point, it tied my mind up in knots for a while, trying not to project concepts of more complex things back onto the simpler Universal states, until I realized that Nowhere is relative to the metric by which you measure "Where". It just means off the metric, or unmeasurable the connotation that it doesn't exist, is a projection from the metric.


 * This suggests that "Spontaneous Generation" must have happened at least once. But Logically spontaneous generation was dis-proven centuries ago, by "Reducio ad Absurdum" Reduction to absurdity. The argument goes something like this:
 * if something can come from nothing, then everything can come from nothing and that is absurd


 * Well, terms in our mind do not come from nothing, they are a product of abstraction. hence they are concepts with a date of birth and a death, As far as location is concerned I do not believe that our mind has a word for word mapping, it does not make sense. (Can elaborate on that)


 * If we accept that nowhere is a location off of the metric, by which we map where, (Space-time) then the concept, formed in space-time has a where and a when, but the element it purports to point to, may not.


 * We have a problem, how can we deal with this logical statement and still accept that Spontaneous Generation happened at least once?


 * One way we can do this, is to find a system definition in which the logical statement is not true. Under that system definition spontaneous generation would still be valid.


 * I detest "logical statements and propositions that claim to be true or false.


 * I blame the Greeks, and especially the guy that thought up the game of syllogisms, which led to logic, the need for a definition of truth, and debate, that claimed to be able to detect proof, by the quality of the arguments. Which then created the burden of proof, and so on. Detest it or not it is a historical factor that affects our lives, every day in Western Civilization.


 * So let us postulate the existence of something that lies below space. Call it subspace if you want, I don't sweat the terminology. If Subspace exists, then if spontaneous generation happens in subspace, there is one thing that can't be created as part of subspace spontaneous generation and that something is the Relationships in space, in essence relationships in space are causally connected to spontaneous generation, but are not part of the generation event.


 * You use a spatial adverb (below space, subspace) instead of metaphyisics, but is there a difference?


 * Only one of emphasis, if I claim my own personal metaphysics, as a religion, then I get interference from other religions that want to compete for my brain time. If I claim it as a sort of Uber-Physics, then I sometimes get conversations like this that make me think. I admit I am a little scattered in my responses to this, claiming it as religion, but then trying to term it in phrases more suited to Uber-Physical Theory.


 * So... Spontaneous Generation might be possible in subspace as long as it doesn't involve relationships in space. In this system the reducio-ad-absurdum described above is already proven false. There is something that cannot be spontaneously generated. It is the nature of laws that if you can prove one exception that a law does not apply in, it can't be a law, so the law that states "There are no free lunches" would be invalid in a sub-space environment.


 * That does not apply to recursion.


 * Sorry, what does not apply to recursion? the no free lunches law of engineering, The reducio-ad-absurdum statement, or the exception to them?


 * Consider, however the nature of something that does not have relationships in space. Complexity is not possible, because complexity is a factor created by relationships within space. Thus we can say that spontaneous generation in a subspace regimen is limited to simple things that can exist without spacial relationships. I propose the Unit Field as being just that simplest of elements, since it has no relationship in subspace except its own existence, and I have defined it as not needing a spatial existence until it is opposed.


 * Sounds convincing...


 * Whew!, thanks.


 * Now consider another objection to spontaneous generation, If you have one thing spontaneously generated, then there is no reason why you can't have more. In fact there is nothing in the world that can stop you continuously experiencing spontaneous generation.


 * What is spontaneity? What is deliberation? Who or what is the actor, generator?


 * Something that is Spontaneous, is usually something that was not planned. Thus when we talk about base elements in the Universe, to say that they were spontaneously generated, is really to say that their existence lies outside the relationships by which we map our expectations and thus our plans. Another way of looking at spontaneous generation, is that the generation event was not started within space-time and therefore nothing in space time would have allowed us to predict the exact location and timing of the event, and nothing in space-time is likely to affect the next spontaneous generation event. While this does not guarantee the repetition of the event, It also gives us no leverage to modulate the parameters of the event to change the nature of the event.


 * As for WHO is the actor, what makes you think there needs to be a who? certainly if this event has been repeated since before the end of time, there was no WHO to act, when it first started. Who's are too complex, to exist in a Universe that consists of a single unit field.


 * Let us therefore take a look at why the Universe is not a solid chunk of something that all happened all at once. Einstein is quoted as saying that Space-Time is how the universe assures that everything doesn't happen all at once, in the exact same location (Ok, I am paraphrasing) One way of looking at it, is that spontaneous generation of anything simpler than a unit field, would result in a single virtual particle that was constantly replaced with other virtual particles at the same location in subspace.


 * Imagining the universe as a Maryoshka doll does not appeal to me. This idea is confined to space, which does not exist on its own, but with time and motion (change)


 * There is no reason known to assume that there are deeper layers than subspace


 * It is the Mutual Exclusion property of Unit Fields that makes possible space-time, in essence space and time exist because Unit Fields refuse to exist at the exact same time and space location as other unit fields. Any less complicated elements that spontaneously generate can be ignored in space-time because they do not manifest there. So we have both an upper limit on complexity, and a lower limit on characteristics needed to spontaneously appear in space time.


 * By doing so you push the problem one level down (subspace) most people push it one level up (a broader term to include two disjunct elements)


 * Do you object to my original approach because it is original or because it is diametrically opposed to the usual approach?

C: This is the generalization of existence and non-existence that indeed comes before just at the same time as time and space.


 * This is materialized by and in a digital computer.


 * You mean the discussion? Yes.


 * Well actually, existence creates the Origin, which is not part of time and space, but is part of subspace. Time and Space are the next step, but here we get into a problem of semantics, how can there be a "next" step if time doesn't exist. I have given this a lot of thought, and what I think we need to accept is that time and space are metrics by which we measure things, so the metric cannot exist unless there are two points to define the relationship. This makes the origin a special case that extends beyond the metric in the before direction, if only because there weren't the two points needed to reference the metric. So we project the metric back onto the origin and can therefore say that it came before, even if time did not exist.


 * Well, Objects, relations and properties are the product of abstraction, and they are likely to be a three faceted something in the brain that can be looked at from three angles. Relation is a verbal unit that is not complete on its own,it needs a subject ad an object, and a subject can only be one of three grammar persons, such as first, second and third. the specifics of the relation will tell you time and space parameters (metrics)

Q: is there a case where space is not a function of motion?


 * yes, the instant that space-time comes into existence, and the force of mutual exclusion has not yet translated into accelleration. We call this spacial dimension TIME In my system time is the first dimension, and spacial dimensions are added to it. In time motion is not required, or possible to map, but precedence is.


 * An instant is a unit of time before space time exists..


 * No, I think of the instant as the event, not the unit by which we measure it.


 * Precedence is a word used when events are described as conditions, a very bad habit... just as events, because they have no clear boundaries.

--Genezistan 20:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Precedence, simply implies a relationship of one element "Coming Before" another. Actually Hofsteaders slipnet as created in the Copycat program, suggests that this is a pseudo sequence related effect, rather than a true sequence at least in the brain.


 * I'll have to get back to this later, need to do some RL stuff.--Graeme E. Smith 15:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

OK I'm back. To go on with this discussion...


 * Alright. I am enjoying this discussion

C: I believe there is only one dimension


 * You may have a point there. Certainly dimensions are somewhat confused in modern mathematics. I personally see dimensions as being either geometric requirements for a certain level of complexity, or phase change "Gateways" between different phases of space-time. Certainly dimensions if they exist at all, are characteristics of space-time. It just so happens that Unit field requires "Knots in space" that can best be described by high dimensional field effects, where the field wraps around itself in a complex manner that somehow breaks the direct connection between two unit fields causing the unit fields within the field structure to act as if they were separate from the fields outside the field structure.


 * The problem is that we want to recreate the visualinut by using a verbal device, form that cannot be assembled into a picture for various reasons, therefore maths (algebra) was devised to provide a tool for giving account of the things in reality, to provide a tool for identifying them clearly and to overcome the problem of multitude that the human mind cannot cope with.


 * Right, and DesCartez, was very influential during our history, and I believe it is his definition of dimension that dominates the junior high school mathematics. It is only once yo reach University that you find, that the rigid axioms of dimensionality are ignored by other thinkers in order to do things like create spherical geometries, and create vanishing points.


 * I want to separate these spacial dimensions from "Apparent Dimensions" since the wrapping effects tends to create the illusion that higher dimensional field structures exist only in 4 dimensions. 3D+Time.


 * I do not buy 3D plus Time


 * Good, but you have to admit that it is the dominant paradigm in the wild-type human population


 * Look at the fractals they show you that the dimensions may not be integers, but in fact those are not dimensions, but directions that you may take (more than two, usually, three)


 * No, I think dimensions are a metric we apply to try and map to space, the problem is what do you do when the surface you are mapping to gets crumpled up and twisted out of recognizable shape, Promote the idea of a sub-mapping regimen like fractions of a dimension? or recognize that the crumpled shape is just as natural as the flat one, and keep mapping to it, as it twists and turns.


 * To get an idea of how a high dimensional field structure might look, you simply have to look at the magnetic field of a pulsar, or similar complex stellar structure, and you will see evidence of magnetic fields wrapping around each other, in an illustration of how dimensions based on fields might work.


 * Do you think that they are not embedded in space and time?


 * What is supposed to be imbedded in space and time?

Q: how come you discuss local and Universal without discussion what makes it local and Universal?


 * I think that the knots in space time, separate unit fields within the knot from the Universal Ether of Space-time. Thus the conditions that exist within the knot can result in higher or lower ambient force constants locally than exist within the Universal Entropic Field. What this might mean, is that by manipulating force, we might be able to create pockets or bubbles of either higher or lower ambient force, and by supplying a gateway between them, provide an energy flow that might be delayed via technological means in order to provide power for other things.


 * Are you in the playing God business? :-)


 * No but I think light and radiation are an indication of the latent energies of such phase changes.

Q: Energy is then the only existing entity...


 * Actually no, Field is the only existing entity, energy is just an effect of Field interaction (opposition).


 * This interpretation is somewhat problematic, however, because it suggests that Energy can be created via field, which would break the energy conservation law a little bit. Once created energy could be conserved, but it like space and time are effects of Unit Fields, not primary entities. Part of the problem with the big bang theory, is simply that there is too much energy in the Universe to be explained by a single explosion no matter how large.

Q: would that explain the big bang theory?


 * No probably not, instead it would require something like a powerlaw theory of phase changes where we get a sort of stair step curve with longer and longer plateaus between energy peaks. However there might be a "Big Bang" during peak energy availability, that acts to block out earlier lower energy stages so that the only reason we know they existed is via artifacts such as the periodic table.

Q: what are these knots?


 * If you think of pascals triangle which is an incremental system of combinations, and you look at the middle terms the 2nd term to the 2nd last term after the second row, you will find that there are combinations required by mathematics that have nonlinear effects in any system with more than 2 bodies. We can see their non-linearity by the order of the terms.


 * It is thought that as long as the complexity of the term stays below about 4 dimensions or an order of about 4, entropy can continue to operate, and energy will attempt to equalize across space. however when dimensions start wrapping around each other when terms begin to have an order of about 5 or more, The distortion of space means that a certain amount of energy is isolated within the field structure. I call the resulting effect a Knot, or an energy reservoir depending on what I am working on.

Q: Mass = Form of Energy Energy = form of mass Does energy have dimensions?


 * Energy itself doesn't have dimensions, however pockets of energy within field structure have the shape of the field structure. Einsteins work, if interpreted librally, might indicate that local field complexity can be increased by velocity. If we look at the formula E=MCC this can be seen to say that Energy released from mass destruction, is equivalent to C squared of the portion of mass converted to energy, or with a simple rearrangement of terms E/CC=M might indicate that an object having energy that is spun on two dimensions at the speed of C will result in a form of mass.


 * Another way to look at this, is that a phase change in the form of energy is experienced when it spins at the speed of C. And perhaps another phase change is experienced when something that spins at the speed of c, is transported at the speed of c, which might explain light, and the interesting duality of it, where it has the potential to be both wave and particle.

Q:What would the Ambient Force Be, and What would the structure of forces be?


 * The Ambient Force would probably be made up of the combined opposition from all other Unit fields that are not blocked from interacting with each other. This would be the "Dark Energy" that Unit Field suggests.


 * The structure of the forces would probably be based on the Architecture of the knots in space, and this is partially caused by higher dimensional energy-field combinations, and partly by field effects that result from velocity.--Graeme E. Smith 19:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * On the Observer and Actor, the Unit field becomes the actor in all things, but the observer, exists not in space-time, but in the metric by which we measure them.--Graeme E. Smith 19:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This last one is a bit surprising, and I need to read the above passages more than three times to be able follow your physics.


 * Thank you for the explanation.

Summary impression: unit field theory or any other theory of that scale is very costly to falsify. I am focusing on simple theories on the mental operations that I find basic and in this effort I have discovered that my ambition to align terms used and defined by people of different domain to come to an agreement on what makes sense is really necessary and could be very fruitful.

--Genezistan 20:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No doubt you are right. That is one reason why I claim it is my religion rather than my theory, per se. Knowing that it is too large to falsify, I still persist in thinking it is correct, or has a validity outside my own brain.


 * However this illustrates two aspects of my life, quite well, I find myself attracted to large questions rather than small ones, and I have suffered from mental health conditions that affect my ability to think, and a large question like this or how to design an artificial consciousness, gives me more different problems to solve, than a smaller more solvable question does, so when certain types of thinking are more difficult, I can switch to others, and still work on the same project. As long as my Intellect is intact, I see no end to the work. An important element since I do not idle well, and tend to think more of suicide when I am unengaged.


 * Part of my problem is that as a low income person, there is little that I can do about proving even the basic questions of my theory. An example is my Dual Cortex model, I am working on a protocol for testing the assumption that the main difference between allocortical tissue and Isocortical Tissue that make up the Cerebral Neo-cortex, is whether allocortical tissue that is not linked to isocortical tissues somewhere else in the brain, is Implicit Memory without Explicit access. To do this I would like to do a double dissociation showing that while allocortical tissue reacts to priming but not to delayed response tests, Visual or Auditory centers will respond to both. I have been informed that the main requirement to make this work is an injection of scopalimine into the olfactory bulb, to block transport to the Isocortical tissues in the ofactory cortex area. The problem is how someone with no Academic Standing can get access to the high security psychological rodent labs and finance such a test. Especially since I am just getting by financially on medical support.--Graeme E. Smith 00:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I fully smpathize with you
It is interesting that we have parallels in our lives.


 * I find myself attracted to large questions rather than small ones,

So do I


 * and I have suffered from mental health conditions that affect my ability to think,

I used to have panic syndrome (attacks) myself, which totally paralized my thinking


 * a large question like this or how to design an artificial consciousness, gives memore different problems to solve, than a smaller more solvable question does, so when certain types of thinking are more difficult, I can switch to others, and still work on the same project. As long as my Intellect is intact, I see no end to the work. An important element since I do not idle well, and tend to think more of suicide when I am unengaged.

I would not talk you out of your project, except for the idea of suicide. You sound to me a medicaly trained person, and i should remind you that medicine is not a science, it is an empirical study. Therefore it has developped through robbing graves, intrusion and invasion into other peope's body, something I do not fancy much. I csannot see why artificial consciousness can be of any practical use, perhaps this is where we differ. But practical purpose in this world means making money (at all rates), which does not appeal to me either.


 * Part of my problem is that as a low income person, there is little that I can do about proving even the basic questions of my theory. An example is my Dual Cortex model, I am working on a protocol for testing the assumption that the main difference between allocortical tissue and Isocortical Tissue that make up the Cerebral Neo-cortex, is whether allocortical tissue that is not linked to isocortical tissues somewhere else in the brain, is Implicit Memory without Explicit access. To do this I would like to do a double dissociation showing that while allocortical tissue reacts to priming but not to delayed response tests, Visual or Auditory centers will respond to both. I have been informed that the main requirement to make this work is an injection of scopalimine into the olfactory bulb, to block transport to the Isocortical tissues in the ofactory cortex area. The problem is how someone with no Academic Standing can get access to the high security psychological rodent labs and finance such a test. Especially since I am just getting by financially on medical support.

Well, the physical experiments at the current level of precisions and theoretical grounding will create more problems than solving ones. Like I find the speed of the working of the brain too fast to observe and make inferences, and localizing any function is still very poor information to make elaborate decsions. Therefore I stick to a path that is like filming or projecting in slow motion so that we can share observations.

As far as academics are concerned, they are organized in camps and well defended against innovative ideas and paradigm shifts. Some are even ready to cheat and forge evidence. Unfortunatelly, I am very ignorant in neurocognition and brain research so my help is more like moral support than contributing with relevant knowledge.

As a lateral thinker I have outlined a solution to several problems, that is how I like doing things, and I find that nearly impossible to market anything unsolicited. The topic you seem to be interested and the whole AI domain does not seem to be in favour of a nice future as funded by your government, but that is not my concern. For practical purposes you may want to realign your subject with sponsored themes such as one I paste in here: (Just an example!!)
 * Foo campers interested in Gov 2.0 on the international level may find

this interesting. The State Department is proposing to fund five projects with a minimum floor of $500,000 per project and a maximum of $2.5 million. These projects should use wikis, blogs, social networking platforms etc to connect people, improve civil society and education etc. Full details at http://mepi.state.gov/opportunities/129624.htm

In the meantime I send my best regards Genezistan 07:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as that goes, the choice of subject has been part of me since I was a child, and now would not be the time to second guess myself, since I am beginning to come up with digital electronic circuits that might implement a completely different type of computer architecture. Right now I have to decide what is more important, to create a node for my supercomputer I hope to use for Software Simulation, or to breadboard the first circuit I hope to use for hardware simulation. I think I will probably do the latter, though I never did do well in calculation of resistance and capacitance, if only because I can then shop the circuit around to look for more money. As for my government... well both federal and provincial levels are conservative and they don't believe in government largess. Besides with no Academic Standing, it might be difficult to qualify for such programs.--Graeme E. Smith 13:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and Medical Training... My Brother has that, he thinks I am a diletant. No my training is in Computer Engineering Technology.--Graeme E. Smith 13:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I see. There is not much that I can add to those points. I came across with another nice and bright chap, a patent-attorney in Texas, I think. He also had an original idea and he designed a computer himself. I wonder if ou are iterested in his line and activities. he would like to pass on his knowledge before he dies, he is near seventy and very friedly.

Genezistan 15:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Actually, he lives in Arizona http://www.patentdoc.com/


 * Well I looked at the fee structure, and it looks a little rich for my budget. If he is interested in talking about what is involved in patenting a circuit, I certainly wouldn't turn him away, and of course if he is interested in talking about his own inventions, I would be churlish not to listen in return. Let me know his name, and where to contact him, or give him my name and how to contact me.--Graeme E. Smith 23:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

His name is Marty. He prefers talking on the phone. Refer to my name, Frank. We contacted on LInkedIn or a similar network about a year ago. Marty has been a registered patent attorney practicing in Phoenix, Arizona, for over 40 years and is an active member of the Intellectual Property Section of the Arizona Bar. In Ohio, he graduated from Ohio State (math major) and Capital University Law School. He graduated first in his law school class, was trained in patent law at Battelle, and was admitted to the Ohio Bar. He has used his broad patent experience to develop quality-enhancing and cost-saving systems for preparing patent applications. Marty has, in legal, robotics, and behavioral areas, presented many technical papers at international conferences and designed and conducted many successful workshops. His writings include several published books; and Marty is himself the inventor of patent rights in artificial intelligence (machines having humanoid cognitive systems). He now offers cognitive training to lawyers and others in antidotes to false persuasion. One of his patents and the subject he is/was interested in. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=5&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=6,651,044&OS=6,651,044&RS=6,651,044 Genezistan 05:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC) He offered me to share his knowledge in antidotes to false persuasion.

--Genezistan 06:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Patent Lawyer
Well if he has to communicate by phone, He had better contact me, my phone number can be sent via E-mail directly to him. If you contact me via the e-mail contact mechanism and give me an address to send it to, I will be pleased to send it in a private message. Due to a banking error, I just overspent my Next months whole food budget, (and can't afford the long distance fees) in order to kit myself up with a breadboard kit, capable of capturing my first circuit, and I am going to be struggling for the next few months to recover. I looked at the patent application you pointed out, and I can see that this patent application business is quite complex, and scary.

Of course it has been years since I last tried to breadboard a circuit, and I have already burned out a signal diode, learning how to install the support circuitry so I can present the circuit with a set signal via a switch. I can only imagine how I am going to translate a transistor only diagram of a supporting circuit, into a real circuit. I can only hope that the hints I have found in some of my old reference books, will allow me to pretend I can remember all that electronics stuff that overstressed me during college.--Graeme E. Smith 23:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In that case give mes some time to find out his email address, phone numbers, etc. and write to him to introduce you. When we talked in the past he would call me and the chatting cost me nothing, despte the fact that we said he was also broke. I expet a similar development.

Regards

Genezistan 06:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC

See also:

http://www.linkedin.com/profile?goback=%2Econ&viewProfile=&key=27330317&jsstate= http://www.linkedin.com/pub/marty-stoneman/9/1a0/1a5

Genezistan 13:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I logged onto Linkedin, but it looks like a pay for service site, so I used Marty's profile, to find his AnthroRobotics site and used the e-mail interface there to leave him a message. Hopefully that works.--Graeme E. Smith 06:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That is fine. Likedin is not a pay service. I recommend you encourage Marty to join Wikiversity with his training in the antidote for false persuasion.

Genezistan 08:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Life
Please take a look at my work: [] --Javier José Moreno Tovar18 (discuss • contribs) 17:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)



Albert Einstein's theory of relativity of time can not be true because if it were the coincidence of events would not be possible.

--Javier José Moreno Tovar18 (discuss • contribs) 15:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)