User talk:La comadreja/Archive Summer '09

Graeme's books and articles
Graeme, that's really cool you're getting professionals in the field to comment on your work. Anything else new? What do they seem to think about it? --AFriedman 00:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well one professional does not accreditation make, but at least he can point out where my reasoning is a little weak. I have talked to the professor before I got involved at Wikiversity, and the effect was that I felt we were talking past each other. He is invested into the ART theory of consciousness, which I find naively to assume that consciousness is an electrical field phenomena. However his attention work is critical to my explanation of the operation of demand type memory. I just think he takes it too far in an attempt to claim status as a consciousness researcher. The problem is that I think that Attention is necessary but not sufficient to explain Consciousness, but that consciousness does not need an arcane theory to explain it, it is really quite simple once you have the requisite cognitive engine underneath it. And he thinks that attention is so much of the necessary information for consciousness that research into attention will explain consciousness, and where it doesn't ART will make up the difference. ART, or Adaptive Resonance Theory, seems to think that the coupling of cells at the electro-physical layer, can explain consciousness. Problem is that Dr. LaBerge in a previous article eliminated the known forms of electrical coupling from contention, either we are talking about a completely unknown electrical field, or he has already shown that this approach will be empty of meaning. Of course if Stanley wants to support work in a completely new electro-physical field, he can open a second laboratory at Simon's Rock, and get more funding.I added a couple of new articles in the last few days, the latest one is on the Scope and Limitations of phenomenally implicit memory. Dr. Laberge got the article on multi-phase attention but hasn't commented on it yet.--Graeme E. Smith 01:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and interesting. I'll have more time tomorrow. --AFriedman 04:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Got your note, I am currently working on Phenomenally Explicit Memory: Scope and Limitations, but it is going slowly.--Graeme E. Smith 17:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Dr. LaBerge got back to me, and he was confused by some parts of my The Dual Mode Cortex article, he says he has read the other articles I sent twice but perhaps does not understand where I am coming from. I have brushed it up a bit, but it still might be ambiguous. He noted a parallel theory by JC Eccles, back in 83, which i think I can use to support my work, but it might be a while before I can see the text, because it is not available over the internet, and he has to go to Seattle to get it from the U of Washington. The article was written in hungary, and published there so it is not easily available locally. It was referenced in another article he sent me about Martinotti Neurons which would be much less important but might have a useful general inhibitive effect that would increase classification by encouraging that activity stay within the columns of the cerebral cortex. I attempted to get a look at the abstract from Eccles article but the only place that admitted having it, barred me from access.--Graeme E. Smith 23:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

In a spirit of getting more scientific background for my theory, I decided to log onto a couple of Scientific contact sites. I advertised the portal there so maybe we will get a little scientific interest. I asked a question about implicit memory on a site that claimed to have scientific solutions that was recommended by a guy from CalTech, so we will see if anything comes of it.--Graeme E. Smith 17:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I gave Dr. LaBerge a copy of an Article I had written on the roles of the Micro-Architectural divisions in the Cerebral Cortex, and he suggested a few improvements and when asked suggested that it might make the Dual Mode Cortex article more readable if I incorporated the information into the earlier article. So I have rewritten my Dual Mode Cortex article. He thinks that I might have a point, and in fact suggested that I might be making an important contribution with my bottleneck article. He had to admit however that I am coming at this project from an unfamiliar tangent, and he has had to think really hard to understand what I am saying. So I am incorporating more explanation of terms. He also seemed startled that I would take on phenomenality in the way that I have, he thought the use of the word Quale, must be a mistake for instance because it is primarily used by Phenomenalist Philosophers to prove that physical systems can't explain experience, and here I am using it as if it does explain the experience of a particular type of physical system. Anyway, I am sure that part of the problem is that he is working too hard at trying to understand me, and so missing the point of my work. I simply have to find a way to explain myself so that it leaves less room for error.--Graeme E. Smith 20:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I am currently working on my 5th protocol for proving some of the hypotheticals in my memory model Dr. LaBerge liked the first two I suggested, so he might be willing to accept the last three, based on a suggestion he made to me. (I think he expected one from the suggestion but I was talking to my mother and suddenly It twigged that I knew how to do three instead of just one. Now if I just knew some way of financing the use of a psychology rodent lab.... ;)--Graeme E. Smith 17:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've come up with 12 protocols now, Dr. LaBerge seems busy right now as I haven't heard from him since I sent him the third, fourth, and fifth protocols. In any case, I have also started an Artificial Consciousness group on ResearchGATE, and so far have 32 members, I invited them over to look at the Artificial Consciousness Sites here on Wikiversity. Also, I am in touch with Gary Marcus, a well known proffessor of linguistics in New York. His approach is to look at Cognitive Architecture from an evolutionary perspective. He also has expressed an interest in doing a hostile take-over of connectionism.--Graeme E. Smith 18:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Dr. LaBerge got back to me on my Attention model, he had some problems with the way I talked about attention he thought I should have mentioned one aspect related to his work that I had ignored, He said that most of it was what he thought the others in Attention were doing, and that he supported the part about implicit attention that I had suggested. It was a fairly positive reaction. Let me know when you get back, eh?--Graeme E. Smith 03:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Mentoring

 * Got an idea how we might be able to set up a marks regimen but I need access to the variable they put the score from the quiz into. I have tried to look up the people who were working on it, but none of them have responded. I can do an honors system mark, but that is the best I have been able to work out so far because I can't retrieve the score automatically. The idea is that we would have a class marks database say, at Portal:GreySmith Institute/Marks. We would extract the Username of the student, possibly from the history page for the quiz, and check to see if they had a marks page such as User:XXX/marks if the user page already existed, we would then search within the user page for the course name, and if the course name existed, we would then add a line at the bottom of the course section to put the quiz mark on. If not we would put into place a double equals header with the course name then use that to edit the section of the course and put in the score line.
 * At the same time, we would take the User Name, and in the Portal:GreySmith Institute/marks page, we would search for the student name, then if it exists use the student name to edit the section of the student, search for the course name, and edit the section under the course name, and finally, add a line at the end of the section to record the quiz name or sequence number and the mark.


 * Students could then get an official transcript of all their quizzes and marks, or we could use some formula say involving how many times they took the quiz and what their last results were, to create an overall mark. For instance each time they take the quiz they could be getting less marks for a perfect score, so the marks for the quiz would be the highest mark times 1/number of quizzes they retook. Or say highest mark - number of quizzes retook or something. Alternately we could award bonus points if they get a perfect mark the first time they take the quiz. Because the link to the marks page would only be accessed indirectly, via a template that could be marked to keep it from being altered, it would be more difficult for the student to poison the marks for others.--Graeme E. Smith 00:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Great idea re: looking for scientific contact. You also might want to sign up for E-mail subscriptions to journal tables of contents (these are basically always free, and you can usually get the abstracts too). I also subscribe to the EvolDir (Evolution Directory, I think) mailing list which has lots of information about what's going on in the field of evolutionary biology. The instructions for subscribing to this list are at http://evol.mcmaster.ca/brian/evoldir_instr.html. There could be other lists like this in Psychology, Neuroscience etc.

I also like your idea about grading the courses. How successful have you been in implementing this? --AFriedman 18:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't really started yet, I have to do some research on wiki language templates especially the extensions to the parser, and I wanted to discuss with you where we would for instance put the marks page for your quiz since it is available to work from. I can for instance use my own user page for marks, and perhaps yours if you agree, and I could host the marks page at GreySmith Institute, or at some location of your choice. Then I have to test the templates until I know that I have got them working correctly only then can we insert them into the quiz page and see how it works.--Graeme E. Smith 21:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

GSI would probably be an appropriate place to put a marks page. Or, perhaps we could create a portal for teachers and mentors, if it doesn't exist already? Teachers shouldn't need to be directly affiliated with GSI but they should come from all over WV, and there should be some way to coordinate all teaching. This portal thing could be connected to our expanding the various sections of Mentorship. What do you think? --AFriedman 22:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * See That is why I wanted to talk to you about this, Now that you have opened my eyes, I see a Faculty Portal, and a marks namespace, we could ask that the marks namespace not be searchable (that means not listed via the search engine)and access would normally be by template tools that are available to faculty members. So direct access by a member would be easily noted in case of a vandalism incident. I am not sure if we could restrict the access to the faculty portal without causing problems with the Terms of Reference of Wikiversity but maybe we could have different tools for different levels of mentors, just like there are for different levels of Custodians, etc. Maybe we could ask that they shut off the edit tab for the marks namespace so that people can read the marks but can't edit them directly. I don't think that will affect people using templates outside the namespace from writing to them.
 * --Graeme E. Smith 00:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I placed a stub explaining the nature of the Faculty Portal at Faculty Portal Who would be best to talk to about creating the Marks Namespace?--Graeme E. Smith 02:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I like your ideas. I would talk to the custodians about this Portal. They have more powers than we do (e.g. they can protect pages from edits), and they also tend to have the most experience. Which ones are the most responsive right now can probably be found based on who's made the most recent changes. --AFriedman 06:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like I might have to learn PHP to be able to program what I want. I am not sure Wikilanguage is up to it. I tried some experiments in my template sandbox yesterday, and they were anything but successful, it seems # based addressing isn't accurate enough for what I want to do. This is good, because it demands a higher level of technical knowledge to get past the security requirements of the templates. I'll check of course but I don't remember seeing substring functionality in wikilanguage.--Graeme E. Smith 14:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it's confirmed there is no substring capability in Wikilanguage or the Parser extensions. That means I have to program in php, or figure out how to talk to MySQL, the database generator for this mediawiki software. It looks like the smallest discrete software element is a section, which means that even extracting lines of code is difficult in wikilanguage. Since what we want to do is extract the mark from a line or record of code, wikilanguage simply isn't the right choice of programming mechanism to deal with it. Somewhere in my copious private library I should have a book on MySQL, possibly not the version they use here, but not too old a version either. It just got a whole lot more complicated, to program the Faculty utilities but that is computing for you, lift up a rock, and find a whole bucket of worms. Not to worry, once you know that all programming languages use the same logic, learning a new programming language is relatively easy, it just takes a while to learn to be proficient in it.--Graeme E. Smith 23:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It turns out that PHP is a C++ like language similar to java that can be inserted in templates as if it were a markup language. This should reduce the learning curve a bit, since I am familiar with Java. However in C like languages the killer part of the job, is learning to use the libraries, which may take some time. Because PhP actually has a string type variable, I can probably manipulate strings, which is what will be needed to make the marks database work.
 * It looks like MySQL is a built in interface in Php, so access to the SQL database directly looks possible. I am confident that this is the level at which I should approach the problem. The trick, as I understand it, is to minimize Php parsing so as to reduce the cost of parsing the template generally. A template with too much Php might end up tagged as an "Expensive" function and be deprecated.--Graeme E. Smith 00:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It turns out that php is not used in the templates like I thought, it is used to interpret the actual mediawiki software package. This means I can't develop it on site I have to write a parser extension on my own computer, and then present it to Wikimedia for testing and approval before it is installed. this involves downloading my own copy of Mediawiki, for test purposes. Well good enough, I could probably incorporate some mentoring tools into the quiz extension, and fix that annoying false negative.Such is life --Graeme E. Smith 06:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to use PHP and what you're doing is very impressive! The programming language that I myself know best, aside from the wiki markup language, is Java. If you really need someone's feedback on PHP there are probably online tutorials that offer that. (I don't know how I would have learned Java without people ready to answer questions when I got really, really stuck, and having living people there for me during my wiki markup language course was also very helpful.) Best of luck. --AFriedman 14:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * C/C++ is a really simple language, before you put in the libraries. The thing that bounced me off of it a couple of times, is simply that it is a functional language and my training was in procedural languages, the voids in the method declarations didn't make sense to me, when I thought of them as being procedures, or subroutines. By the time I learned JAVA I was already beginning to understand object oriented programming which is the main difference between C and C++ essentially C++ is a preprocessor for C that implements object oriented programming. One reason that C type languages have prospered, is that they can be used to do complex things because of their libraries.


 * PHP 5.X is an object oriented language similar to java so you might not find it too difficult to program in, if it weren't that it probably has it's own unique library system to learn. However it has been designed to operate in a hypertext environment, where the volume of text is much higher than most programming languages. Think of it as a way of adding a programming language to html.


 * Unlike Java, which has to have an interpreter in the web browser, PHP has it's interpreter in the server, so unless you look at the actual source document, you will not see the programming that makes the services possible. This is slightly more secure, because it does not expose the internals of the server to the public. The combination of Java, and PHP, gives you a very powerful package, because you can share the responsibility for the services between the server and the web browser, putting the things that the server needs to do on the server, and the things that the server doesn't need to do, on the web to be done locally by the users computer. The main problem is to tell the two languages apart, which is easier with PHP because it requires a special syntax to escape the document mode of the server.--Graeme E. Smith 21:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know C+/C++. I'm taking a course next year that has a major C+/C++ component, but I'm not there yet. I'm curious what resources you are using to learn about all these languages, and what you think of them. --AFriedman 02:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, to give you a little history, C was invented by Ken Thompson, the designer of Unix, as an improvement on B, an illfated language that might have been an attempt to improve Assembler. The idea was to come up with a high level language that took very little room to implement. I believe C++ was invented by Dr. Strousap or something like that, as an attempt to make C object oriented. The original C++ was written as a preprocessor that was run on the C compiler. Java was originally designed as an interpretive version of C++ with some enhancements meant to make it more friendly.
 * C and C++ being quite quirky. One of the main improvements that java took on, was an improved library more or less built into the distribution. While some C++ compilers such as Microsquishes Visual C, had advanced libraries, there was little standardization between C variations as to what the library contained. Many libraries were afterthoughts especially when dynamic loading made it possible to add a library as a DLL file. Today it is virtually impossible to learn c/c++ if only because C# is taking over the windows programming world, Essentially C# is a C compiler more compatible with Java, than with the original C/C++. The main problem being that the Unix crowd, are not porting linux over to C# if only because it seems to be proprietary to Microsquish.


 * Bear with me, I have been meaning to learn C/C++ forever, but have never found the time, and so I have read a number of introductory chapters of a number of C manuals. For your purposes think of C/C++ as being a quirky variation of Java, even if the actual history is the opposite way around. One of the books I have in my library is a book on security requirements of writing in C/C++ which suggests that there are distinct caveats to writing in C/C++ caused partially by the haste, and reduced size of the programming language and the standard Libraries that come with it. Some very basic library entries are deprecated for security purposes, if only because they do not deal well with buffer over-runs etc. When such a vulnerability is adjacent to a jump vector it is possible to overwrite the jump vector and redirect the program to an unplanned address where a malware program may be waiting. Attempts to build more security conscious Libraries have been attempted and newer versions of C/C++ probably contain some of these innovations. However if you are not aware of the current standards, and the compilers compliance to them, how will you know?


 * Anyway I am currently madly scrambling trying to figure out how to install the 4 or 5 programs that are needed to run mediawiki software. So far they aren't configured correctly, so they do not talk to each other. Further the available versions of the software are not the versions wikiversity uses, and some of the functinoality of the available versions might be temporarily broken, so even if I get them running there is no assurance that they will work together. Although most of them have MSI type installation software, they seem to need to be configured to work together, and installation errors seem to preclude me getting them to configure. In short, I have a real snarl to overcome and no idea whether at the end the system I get will 1. work, 2. be close enough to installed systems to be compatible, and 3. make sense to me, once I put it all together.


 * On the other hand, perhaps reworking the quiz extension is not as good an idea as I thought. The wikiversity interest in rewriting the quiz extension seems to have petered out once they got a good look at MOODLE. In Moodle they have Quizzes, that you get a report from, surveys, that can include essay questions, and an interface that allows the upload of SCORM modules from other training platforms. The question becomes do we reinvent the wheel, on Wikiversity, or combine the two projects, perhaps by incorporating Wiki-like pages into MOODLE? Moodle has teacher roles, and Administrator roles already implemented, and you can get a Windows memory stick with moodle already installed. The technology is strikingly similar even to having PHP and MySQL as the base technology. If you want to look at it, Draconis, has implemented a wikiversity moodle on a sandbox machine, so you can play with it, and there is significant documentation, on wiki-moodle.--Graeme E. Smith 05:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it looks like microsoft doeasn't really like PHP, I've been trying to install it on a windows machine for almost 2 days, and it just isn't coming together. I am beginning to think I should give this up as a bad installation, especially since something is cranking on my floppy drive when there is nothing in the drive to write to. The last time that happened, I had a malware attack, but the virus scanner just gave me a passing grade. (As if I trusted THAT source). I may have to rebuild my machine. In any case It will probably run on a linux box, so I can look into that approach later.--Graeme E. Smith 16:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I did some work on Portal:Faculty Let me know what you think--Graeme E. Smith 21:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

A couple things.


 * 1) Portal:Faculty--I like your subclassifications of mentorship. It looks like a really good start.  However, I'm a bit concerned about whether enough of the right people will use it.  I think you should add links to this portal, e.g. on the main page, and tell the custodians and other active members about it.  I'm also concerned that newcomers to the site might think it's for people who have been active for a while, since "faculty" are usually carefully selected based on their advanced degrees &c.  Perhaps call it Portal:Instructors instead?  One of the first things people learn, when they come to this site, is that anyone can be an instructor.
 * 2) I can't help you with PHP and the other software because I don't know myself. Your writing would not be wasted if you added it to the course about programming in C, C++ and C#.  Have you done this? --AFriedman 01:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, sorry didn't think about that.... or How about Portal:Mentorship. I could just rename it...

I wanted to get your ideas about the portal, before I started pushing it on anyone else, if there was something objectionable, I thought you would know what it might be. I took the rough outline from Wikiversity:Mentors and just filled in the roles that I thought were needed. you might note that I changed the order of the content mentors, to come before course mentors. this was because I thought that it was a natural progression to learning. First you learn how to express yourself in wikilanguage then you help out on a couple of courses then you start some courses of your own...

Maybe it doesn't work like that in real life but at least, it makes sense that it might.

Don't worry I don't expect your help with C C++ and C# If I wanted to learn them I have a compiler that will do any one of them. I suppose I can look at the books and courses on programming languages and see how I can help with them, but I don't think of myself as any type of expert. on programming.... still as they say, those that can does, and those that can't teach....;) Frankly, I don't know which way to jump right now. I thought I knew how to express myself on my theory, but the response I am getting back from the scientists is underwhelming, The general consensus is ??? ??? ??? what is he talking about? I haven't had one person yet tell me I am wrong. They just don't send me any responses.--Graeme E. Smith 09:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I put a blurb on the Wikiversity:Mentors page about Portal:Mentorship, and Darklama got involved. It seems he objects to the "Business Model" aspect of our contribution, and Insists that it be a Task oriented community model instead. What he did to the Research Mentor program is strip out all the Roles and replace them with a list of tasks. No more Research Directors... or Research Apprentices... Oh well. I am having a discussion with him about whether or not peer review needs more emphasis. Course mentors are gone, Subject mentors are gone and all that is left is a list of tasks for something called an Education mentor. He did manage to incorporate most of the sub-roles I suggested within the larger role as tasks, so I guess I should be glad he didn't object more.--Graeme E. Smith 21:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Portal, etc.
Mentorship works, as a portal name. But I prefer "Instructors" because I think it is more inviting to beginning users of the wiki. Some newcomers may well be there to help teach and "mentorship" still sounds like something that has special requirements.

In terms of the responses to your work, the professionals in the field tend to be very busy and usually don't have time to give feedback to someone who is doing something not directly related to their work. They're often the same with their own graduate students, so I think you're expecting too much of them for yourself. I do suggest you write short (1 page) summaries of your theories and the evidence for them/experiments you can perform to test them. Then you can make the writing as cogent as possible. You might also want to go to local universities and try to meet people in related fields in-person, if you can. --AFriedman 19:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Instructor seems kind of formal for me. If we are going to call them mentors, then Mentor or mentorship, makes more sense. Besides some of the roles I have suggested for mentors don't fall under the rubric of Instruction, and have more of an administrative flavor. One of the things I think Wikiversity lacks is organizational infrastructure. Not that we have to get all stuffy and build a bunch of policies, that hem in the students, but that we need some organization, in order to see where we need to improve the product. One of the things I was thinking about doing, was to create "Offices" for the roles that were organizational, and the "Office" could be a discussion board discussing the role, without voting anyone into the role, sort of a collaborative "office" instead of a physical or voted position. For instance the "Office of Chancellor" Would have an overview of all the schools and Portals, and a discussion about how they fit together. Merging decisions could be made at the chancellor level once the editing frenzy of a new school or Portal had died down. For instance if there were enough courses that bridged the neurosciences and the pshycology, we could move them into a Brain Sciences school, and merge the schools. same thing with the school of thinking.


 * This would allow us to deal with orphaned subjects that are all stubs, and no meat, and would help with the Annealing process that is supposed to make Wikiversity better over time. Unlike Wikipedia or WikiBooks, we are dealing with much more diffuse organizations of information that can't be as easily condensed when the projects fail half built. So having an overview would seem more critical to this approach, than to either of the others. The chancellors office could trigger merges of schools and portals, the School or Portal administration could trigger merges at the resource and course levels within the schools. This reminds me has anyone done a study on the life-cycle of the various organizational structures in Wikiversity? I can see with my own projects that there is a life-cycle to it, It has definitely gone through different stages I think it went through a mapping stage, where I tried to map out the subject matter, a development stage where I tried to build supports for it, and found the map too large to work with, now I think it must go through some sort of consolidation phase where I make it a little more focused, but I don't yet know how to do that since my map is so comprehensive. One of the reasons that I need to work on it, is because I am getting so little feedback on what I think are basic principles needed to develop the structure, that I think that perhaps the basics need to be dealt with first. I have even sent messages of one line, asking direct questions and had no significant responses, so I think I am just working out of the focus of existing science, and All the scientists I am working with are unable to respond.--Graeme E. Smith 21:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting ideas regarding offices. They do sound like good ideas, at least to me. Perhaps what we need is just more people working on this project. The organization will more or less come of itself if we get that. Wikipedia certainly has some very interesting organization. I'm on several of Wikipedia's WikiProjects (have been contributing to articles about Judaism of late) and those are often organized quite well. I have been doing some very interesting collaborations over there. The level of feedback on Wikipedia edits is quite impressive, sometimes for worse because I've had to defend my edits against people who reverted some of them.

Perhaps if you really want feedback, you could put some of your theories as theories in Wikipedia articles? Then the experts, who sometimes look at those articles, might give you feedback. --AFriedman 22:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that Wikipedia, because of its nature has adopted a "No Original Research" policy similar to that of WikiBooks. So, yes I would get feedback, perhaps more than I want... like happened on Wikibooks the minute I even mentioned that my book had overtones from my original research. I might use Wikipedia to fact check some of my background research but I would hesitate to put anything original on it.--Graeme E. Smith 02:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That is a problem. I guess it's which comes first, the chicken or the egg...once you get your work published, it can go on Wikipedia, but you need to communicate with people on Wikipedia to get your work published. Can't think of anything to do about that, except to talk to the custodians. --AFriedman 23:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a problem that Wikiversity will eventually get around to dealing with, it just hasn't been an issue up until now. Besides I am not so sure that my writings are up to standard yet, I am still fact checking them which is difficult because I don't know exactly where to go for the answers. I keep running up against pay sites, that want an arm and a leg for a copy of an article. I just got directed to a pay site by Elsevier of all companies because it offered a free trial. As if a free trial was actually free access... sheesh! Anyway, I think that explaining phenomenality is beyond my current comfort level, so I am looking a little deeper into the micro-anatomy to support my work that way. I have a couple of articles perking in my Article sandbox, but they look a little anemic on the references section as yet.--Graeme E. Smith 02:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You can get access to plenty of pay sites if you can somehow find access to a major university library. Might be able to go into one even if you aren't enrolled, and I'm not sure it always costs a whole lot of money to use them. --AFriedman 17:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, the UofA Library here in Edmonton, allows 1 day temporary accounts that you can use for pay sites. The main problem being I have to physically relocate to the library, and use one of their often well-used computers to access it. They don't like us to get the account and sign in from outside the library. As an old Fat Man with Mental Health Issues that affect his motivation as far as affecting his willingness to physically relocate very often, I probably don't get as much use of the offer as I should. Besides, I think that my library card needs to be renewed...;) I put a comment into the talk pages at Wikiversity:Mentors that should indicate how to get to Portal:Mentorship for anyone that was involved in the original discussion. I was thinking of using anchors on a start page that defined the types of Mentors, as a jump into the subpages that deal with each type of mentor, what do you think?--Graeme E. Smith 19:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Fundamentals of Neuroscience
I took the liberty to add some information on the membrane potential module of your Fundamentals of Neuroscience course, It looked like you might need some information to link Membrane potentials, Ions and the Electrical Theory together, Take a look at it, and see if I captured what you wanted the module to be. On the same topic, we had our first annonymous editor on the course, they changed one question in the basic electrical quiz. I put a blurb in the talk page to explain why, and changed it back.--Graeme E. Smith 21:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool re: the anonymous editor. Thanks for your work on Fundamentals of Neuroscience, it looks great so far.  Re: the library, I wonder if you could talk with a librarian at U. Alberta to bring up your specific issues.  Glad to know that you actually can get access to a library.  --AFriedman 16:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I talked to a librarian a year or so ago, and was told that the policy is relatively inflexible. I can get the "Alberta Card" at the local library which gives me access to the UofA library, and my drivers license gets me a day pass at the computers, but to get anything better I would have to be registered at the UofA for a course. Right now it doesn't make sense to take a course for longer than 5 days because of my health. I could probably take extension courses, and correspondence courses from a number of Universities that have offices here in Edmonton, but free access to science sites, is not quite that easy to arrange. I am hoping they will put a branch of the UofA library downtown here, in the Enterprise Square building, but so far I haven't heard of one. It's only a 15 minute trip across the river on the LRT, To the main library, but I just don't seem to make it all that often.--Graeme E. Smith 17:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you seem to be working awfully hard on this site. It might be worth taking correspondence/extension courses just to get feedback from someone else and put fresh ideas into your head.  I know it's difficult for me not to be taking any courses.  Have you ever gotten the "Alberta card"?  --AFriedman 21:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, it was valid up until last month I think I haven't looked to see. Problem with correspondence courses is that I don't do as well on the tests as I do with a real teacher. Maybe that was just because the last course I took was Calculus, and I had a bit of trouble with it, even when I started taking the course in a live class. It took a while to get it through my thick skull that dx/dy was not a fraction. The problem with calculus is that it takes too much memorization because each separate process was someones lifes work and they don't teach you the history at the same time they teach you the calculus. Or at least not at the basic levels. We were taking heavyside calculations at one point, and I didn't know until months after that they were really a short cut for laplace transforms. I used to like applied math, but I can't keep the calculus in my mind, it's like fractions and trigonometry, I never felt I could keep a grasp on them. I can work my way to fractions from first instances usually but not with calculus. I prefer learning in a structured environment, or "Weeding it" where I set my own agenda by what captures my attention. Correspondence courses would probably be too structured for me to "Weed it" and too unstructured for me to learn in detail.--Graeme E. Smith 00:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh where oh where has my little Ann Gone?
You must be suddenly exceedingly busy you have missed two return dates already. I hope it's not my breath?--Graeme E. Smith 05:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Graeme! I have been very busy and sorry.  My summer school course was very time consuming and I'm still catching up with some of the other non-wiki things I should have done earlier.  What is new with you? --AFriedman 21:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear you are back! Well I've been busy, found a couple of books I wanted so I refreshed my library card, and ordered them via interlibrary loan. So the last few weeks I have been pushing myself trying to get as much out of them as possible in the 2 weeks I got them for. One was Heiko Braaks Architectonics of the Human Telencephalic Cortex. A small book but just packed with information on how the telencephalic Cortex is organized at the cellular level, and how to interpret staining studies. My dad's out of the hospital, but I have to act as a respite worker 2 days a week, to let my mother do some singing and get her shopping done. I have an Artificial Consciousness Group forming on ResearchGATE, and I am arguing my theory with some of the guys on NatureNetwork. I have a gazillion Articles in the works, and I have started writing a book on geothermal heating and cooling on Wikibooks. I've updated your talk page a number of times since you left so it will take a while for you to get up to date. I have been accepted for a therapy group locally, so maybe I can work on some of my mental health issues there. It's a good thing I don't have a life! I wouldn't have time to think!--Graeme E. Smith 06:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh good. Where is your online discussion group?  Who else is participating?  --AFriedman 16:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

ResearchGATE is the Artificial Consciousness Group (over 175 members most of which do not post) and NatureNetwork is where I have been discussing my memory model (over 370 members on the Brain physiology Cognition and Consciousness group) my discussion thread is called "from neuron to Memory System: How memory might work". I recently had to re-find the group because it was promoted from a forum to a group without notice when it broke 370 members. If you want an idea of how busy I have been take a look in my Article Sandbox I have recently begun to classify the articles as to their topical sections and stage of completion, many of them are only 25% complete, but that is because the number of articles I want to write keeps increasing faster than my ability to write them. I managed to get in trouble with JTNeil because I was classifying the articles as I wrote them and he objected to the classifications being projected onto his Psychology Page. The problem being that they were showing up as User files, which looked bad. We agreed that I should classify them GreySmith/Psychology instead of Psychology alone.Oh, yeah my book is at Geothermal Heating and Cooling--Graeme E. Smith 17:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, a lot has happened since I last left! I just signed up for Research Gate.  When I clicked on the Nature Network link, though, the domain seemed for sale.  Which article do you think is the most important for explaining your theory?  --AFriedman 02:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed a dot. Try nature network again now. The Nature Network link has an explanation of my memory theory which is needed to understand my consciousness theory, which is necessary to understand my Cognitive Architecture, which is necessary to understand my Artificial Consciousness Architecture. So start with Nature Network.--Graeme E. Smith 06:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So the address is http://nature.network.com? I still can't get to it.  --AFriedman 21:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry this time I actually checked the URL, they had reversed the names, it works now.--Graeme E. Smith 23:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting and thanks. --AFriedman 18:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

no problem, I started another thread called from neuro-system to Mind, How Mind Might Work on Nature Network, but so far no comments--Graeme E. Smith 17:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Graeme, how are you? I'm still getting into the rhythm of being back on Wikiversity, which is a bit more difficult given how busy I am.  Sometimes I feel like my real life is overwhelming and I need space, time and Internet space to just take a step back and think.  I won't be back to my full WV self for some time, and I'm going back on bit by bit.  Have you had any real, positive comments yet from professionals in the field about the things you wrote?  --AFriedman 18:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If I get a positive comment, it is usually followed up by a negative one. My stuff is too fresh for much buy in yet. The most positive stuff I get comes from the fringe guys, and the minute my head is not turned they attack me, so I guess I can say that positive reactions are not expected. Frankly I am getting a bit discouraged though, I haven't seen much evidence that anyone really understands my work.--Graeme E. Smith 21:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't really understand your work. Why don't you write a paragraph or two somewhere on the GSI site, summarizing what you think you've found, or at least what you'd like to experiment on?  --AFriedman 21:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's just a little model of how the mind might work, that's all, just a little model, Ok, it's based on an understanding of multiple disciplines without too much buy-in to the disciplines own particular slant on consciousness, but still, all it is, is a model. Either my mind is very rare, to find the necessary connections to make the model work, or I am completely wrong, but that is not the reaction I get exactly, mostly what I get is silence. I was hoping for a good argument, but instead all I get is silence.--Graeme E. Smith 23:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Silence is what so many people get. What is your overall conclusion about how the mind might work?  --AFriedman 02:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well probably 60%-80% or more of the brain seems to be tied up in a memory system/Processing system that is self-programming.


 * How is this different from other models of the brain? What does "self programming" mean?

--AFriedman 15:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well this model tracks how the different parts of the brain work together to create the holistic memory system, while many other models just show the architecture without the explanation.--Graeme E. Smith 21:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The architecture of the brain is dependent on the limitations of Neural Memory/Processing networks
 * in what way? --AFriedman 15:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well the bottleneck probably wouldn't exist if it weren't or the fact that the brain is based on a Neural Network implimentation of memory, and if Neural Networks weren't a better fit for content addressable memory than for demand type memory. We would not need the cerebral cortex to be quite so large if it wasn't for the fact that neural network memory systems don't easily lend themselves to addressing individual storage elements, things like that.--Graeme E. Smith 21:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

and the structure of the neural processing centers seem to be determined mostly by the nature of the Attention System
 * how? --AFriedman 15:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, each sensory modality has its own processing centers that consist of Core/Belt/Associative areas, and these seem to jibe quite well with my model of three different types of explicit attention.--Graeme E. Smith 21:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

and it's job of controlling the transfer of data from one area of memory to another. The main problem is how to limit my overall conclusions since whenever I learn more about the brain, it seems to indicate that what I have already modeled is relatively accurate.

Of course I expect there to be errors and omissions, I am not yet fully an expert on the brain, but even when I start looking at the highest resolution our current science can achieve, I find support for my model. However many of the people I talk to on the internet seem too impressed with the illusions associated with the brain, and perhaps their own intelligence, and their ideas often clash with the model, but can be clearly defined as being related to a particular illusion, or other. Usually the error is one of omitting some complexity that is clearly there in the brain, but which is hidden from view by the illusions the brain creates about its own operation.

Of course it really doesn't do to tell a tenured professor from Germany that they are naive, but I have been so annoyed at the pettiness of the complaints about my model, that I have actually done so. The professor explained that currently the group while having 371 registered members has lost most of the serious posters due to the annoyance of some of the fringe posters, but for me, at one point they were the only posters willing to give me the time of day, which kind of suggests that I am being treated as a fringe person myself.Which I guess I am, since my model does not yet have the support of a majority of scientists.--Graeme E. Smith 03:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So in other words, your model states that neural networks in the cerebral cortex are how memory is stored? --AFriedman 20:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, does that ever over-simplify the issues!


 * First of all, I recognize three types of neurons. Some neurons are optimized for Processing, Some neurons are optimized for storage, and some neurons are optimized for transport. Most of the cells in cortex tissue are pyramidal cells which we think are optimized for storage, but don't forget that they also do some processing and transport as well. Most of the stellate cells are optimized for processing, but don't forget they do some storage and transport as well, and some neurons in the fiber bundles are optimized for transport, but don't forget they do some storage and processing as well.


 * Storage is achieved at the Synapse of the cell, in some chemical reactions within the cell, and in the connections that grow between the cells. Kandel got his Nobel Prize for showing that there was a link via the chemical cascade reactions found in cells that have the NMDA synapse, that linked synaptic memory to growth of fibers between cells. So saying that it is the Neural Network that stores memories is a bit simplistic, but the network of connections and synapses associated with each neuron in the brain store memories, and the neural networks affect how those memories can be accessed.


 * Now we get to the questions emphasis on the Cerebral Cortex. The Cerebral cortex has the distinction of being the first place that the neurons from all the senses, project to and therefore the entry point of the senses into the brain. Some of the senses are relayed through the thalamus, but the connections don't get processed as far as we know but just pass through and get switched on or off.


 * However the memory system includes three loops, the Cerebral-Thalamus Loop, the Cerebral-hippocampal loop, and the cerebral cerebellular loop. (The names of these loops have been changed to protect the innocent) Each loop is a distinct part of the memory system that operates in parallel with the other loops. So no, memory isn't all stored in the cerebral loop. Does that answer your question?--Graeme E. Smith 00:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To some extent. Thanks.  Why don't we make a special page about this?  --AFriedman 13:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

What did you have in mind? I have a copy of Kandel's Principles of Neuroscience we can quote from but it won't have my model in it. Do you want a page on my model, or just a page about the three loops in the brain, or a page on memory in general? Do I find a home for it, at GSI, or do we want it in the main memory space? So many questions.... ;)--Graeme E. Smith 14:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you make a page at GSI and to start with, basically copy and paste what you just wrote (that I answered earlier today)? It's much clearer to me than most of the other things you've written, although I still have a few questions about the specifics and rationale. I suggest that you put it close to the main page of GSI and have a link to it on your own page. Then people would have an idea for where you are coming from. I would call your page "Fundamental Hypotheses about Cognition" or something. --AFriedman 14:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I decided not to really look at the social networking sites, for now. So please forgive me about any inactivity on ResearchGATE and elsewhere. I'd rather focus on actual research, both in my real life and on WV, and talk to you and others over here. --AFriedman 15:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will look at GSI and see where I can fit it in.--Graeme E. Smith 22:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is the page? --AFriedman 14:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I was putting together a slide show for a pdf, but one of the pictures from wikimedia commons gave it indigestion, and it wouldn't save. Anyway I thought I would put it into the familiarization and Tutorials page, that links off the lines just below the title. Its the first, right-hand link after you push the familiarization and tutorials button, which goes to a potential list of links, which will eventually link to the PDF. But there is nothing there yet. I am trying to see how much of the work I have already done, I can recover.--Graeme E. Smith 22:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Brain Familiarization Tutorial
Ok you can find the tutorial at: Portal:GreySmith Institute/Theoretical Tutorials/GreySmith Memory Model It's called Brain Familiarization.pdf I just updated it to include some files about Neurons that I found on Wikimedia Commons--Graeme E. Smith 14:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing. Actually, I'm leaving for Spain and will be back in a couple of weeks.  --AFriedman 17:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Have a good trip.... (bumble) darn that hurt!--Graeme E. Smith 15:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey! Thanks.  How have you been?  I'm back from Spain (wow, awesome place) and even though I have more of a life now than when I started this site, I'll have more time to be online for the next couple of weeks.  School won't start for a bit.  I still have my job, but I probably *could* show this work to my boss, as my job *is* in science and my boss hasn't *yet* given me anything to do since he told me to write a book chapter...I just finished 2 real manuscripts, which are being submitted.  No, they are not any of the "projects" I've listed in my page, but the one that is going to journals is on a related topic.  Basically, this site is about what I wish I did.  Hope you're doing well.  --AFriedman 20:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to bad considering. My new life with the mental health organization is not doing too badly, I feel tired all of the time, but I still manage to spend some time every day managing my wikiversity site, and all the science sites I belong to. I think I have a hook to hang my idea of having a Cluster Computer on, since I am putting together a "Computer Club" with some of the other geeks at the mental health group. And my theory has moved in a couple of new directions, one of which is to define weak attention, and model it with a 10 phase model, and other is to realize that what I am trying to base my work on is mostly the psychology of neural Tissues, I call it histo-psychology for short.
 * Good luck with your treatment. What are you doing in your "computer club"?  --AFriedman 15:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well you have to understand the people involved, to understand what I am trying to achieve, consider a group of people who for various reasons have crawled inside their computers, and never want to come out, even enough to be employed. People like me, for instance. The challenge is to organize them in a manner that will allow them to take advantage of their computer skills, to hold down a job collectively where none of them could hold down a job severally. So far we have thought up 3 different markets for our skills. Preparing computers for charitable donation to needy individuals, Preparing computers for sale to low-income individuals, and Preparing computers for use as a cluster computer. As well, there is some room for upgrading computers, and repairing virus infections etc. It might be too much to ask some of them. One guy for instance is melting down right before my eyes, and I am not sure how much of it is a bad situation in his life, and how much is the pressure he puts on himself to perform. I am trying to keep the program low key and unthreatening, but most of the people involved are self-defeating in some manner or another. It should be fun.--Graeme E. Smith 04:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know what to say about that, except that I wish you all well. Computers are very cool.  --AFriedman 03:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought I commented on this already, but apparently I lost my edit session before I was finished. I have been watching Marian Diamond on YouTube to brush up my anatomy. I just finished putting 2 and 2 together to link the Pons, the Subiculum, and the Thalamus together as pre-activation organs in the three cortex loops. As well, I am hoping to create a cluster computer at the Computer Club, that could be used for experimenting with cluster processing. What I hope to do, is run some small simulations on it, once I understand MPI a bit better. I envision starting with about 4 nodes, and working up from there.--Graeme E. Smith 13:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As for me, I'm back at work but between projects. I'm about to do more.  --AFriedman 14:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok good luck with work, I started writing a new book yesterday I call it "A New Glimpse of the Brain" so far I have written 4 sections out of about 7.--Graeme E. Smith 06:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)