/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10501817
>The result, which will be gradually unfolded...
Stopped reading there. You're not writing a detective novel, state you damn results at the start. Why would I care reading your paper if I don't even know if I would care about the result?

intro should be way longer, why have you not mentioned previous findings/ reports?

>>10501827
The result is the article itself
I already summarized the argument perfectly, starting from "I deduce..."
>>10501844
Other than common facts, there was barely anything useful enough for me to mention
humans are dumb
just keep reading

I'm just a freshman so I probably won't know what the fuck you're even talking about but I'll read it when I stop feeling sick if that makes you feel a bit better, OP.

No I am not

>>10501872
Don't worry, the article was meant to be easily understandable
If you need some clarification, think of this

>Everything you consciously experience is a by-product. It's the inner network that matters. In the article, I explained how the network works.

>>10501817
looks fine, i don't feel like reading all of it though
>>10501827
you're just a cunt, although it does feel like persuasive paper
>>10501844
its not about length, you should never sacrifice quality for quantity

>>10501817
Holy shit OP this is brilliant!

>>10501899
forgot to take your trip off, bro

>>10501817
>Modern technology has allowed us to better analyze the brain’s structure, and numerous secrets about neurons—the most basic units of the human brain—have been uncovered.
A bit awkward
>and no clear distinction has been discerned in regard to their...
Should replace 'discerned' with 'found' imo.

>>10501887
It's literally just neural networks

If you actually had something new or useful you could say it in less than 36 pages.

>Let us, therefore, introduce a novel approach by conducting an experiment from a direct, first-person perspective. The individual who is involved in the research becomes not a subjective observer but a valid, materialistic component of the scientific evidence regarding neural reactions in the brain.
Should elaborate. What do you mean? That you're just noting your own stimuli and responses? How could you measure the neuron activity objectively then?

whats a neural network?

>>10501817
This is genius, you should submit it to Nature.

>>10501928
Let me explain this.
Since the brain is material, every stimulation that is experienced does indeed evidence the model I proposed.

People intuitively think of this kind of observations as "subjective," but they are missing the point. The model applies to every though process that you produce, and it's an interesting new language to describe the mind.

Of course, other forms of evidence cannot yet be obtained due to the limitation of technology. However, I'm not actually trying to prove anything. All I needed was some inspirations for AI, and this side project did what it's supposed to do.

>>10501920
Well I don't use English often but I tried.

>>10501933
>>10501924
People knew there were neural networks, but they have no idea what they actually do. Many thought that when interneurons fire they magically produce consciousness, and that is really foolish.

>>10501934
am I being memed
no because they will fuck up my formatting

>>10501959
>>10501934
>>10501899
>>10501890
samefag stop its cringe. I was gonna give your paper a chance but the way you are presenting yourself throws it all in the bin for me.
>15 replies and 9 posters
>15 replies before an hour on /sci/ and its not a iq thread?lol

>>10501967

>>10501934
>>10501890
are not me you dumb. And there's nothing wrong with people being polite.

Besides, my ideas can literally save the world

>>10501899
What are you doing

again, why do we let schizos use the internet??

based schizo OP

Read my paper and gimme the fucking million dolla

Real Numbers in the Neighborhood of Infinity
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1811.0222

Many people anthropomorphize the brain as if it's thinking by itself. "The brain wants you to do xxx." No, that doesn't happen.
Others even think there are *****calculations***** going on with the neurons. That's fucking bullshit.

Do you all really think evolution can design anything complex?
Do you think that your thinking process is complicated, instead of being just a few visual and emotional stimulations?
No. Intuition is all there is. Intuitions established through neural networks.

>>10501817
Poor scientific approach.
No definition of terms discussed. ie. What is the "information" the organic neuron processes? What is the format and type?
No references.
I'd say it's at best a superficial overview of an idea about highly specialized notions you clearly do not understand.

>>10502124
Information. Neural connections established through learning. The "information" an individual neuron possesses is merely its connections and action potential.

The "format" part is indeed a highly abstract notion that I pioneered. On the entry level, you need only to see it as roughly the types of information humans perceive like heat, taste, and vision. If we model these types of information together in high-dimensional space, it's going to be very complicated.

In terms of approach, this is the only one that can be even remotely scientific. Sometimes science needs you to actually think when you don't have the technology and quantifiable data. Of course, that mght sound bizarre.

If you are confused by a term like information, then you have not even remotely understood the core concepts of my article. The article is about human reaction.

I know there's a lot of new things I invented and it's hard to digest in a short time. I understand the incompetence of the human thought and the inevitable bias it produces. It's going to take time.

Thanks for the feedback.

>>10501967
>ironically tell OP to submit his paper to Nature
>get called samefag

OP, I have a phd in neuroscience so if you want I can give you some feedback based on the abstract that I just read, but I'm not sure you're going to like it...

>>10502235
If you have something to say just say it. It's not like I haven't moved past the point of caring about validation or embarrassment.

>>10502245
I gave up because I got frustrated. It is extraordinarily poorly written with no discernible research question that is addressed in a coherent manner. It is full of non-sequiturs, flat out wrong statements, and ill-defined concepts which you haven't even attempted to operationalize in a meaningful way. And that's just in the parts that I have commented on. The rest is as comically pretentious as it is ignorant.

>>10502307
schizo btfo

>>10502307
Well I did write the abstract page in a hurry and the entire "experiment" section seems forced. Maybe I should just go back writing in terms of AI.

By the way, none of the details you mentioned is likely to affect any of my main arguments. Of course there's some variations in different organs, but they do not change the overall logic of the system. It's not my job to consider something that has not proven to have any potential significant impact on human cognition.

But I guess there's no point telling you this since you're gonna disregard the paper altogether.

>>10502324
I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and give it a read later tonight OP

>>10502324
>It's not my job to consider something that has not proven
This is why I called your paper both ignorant and pretentious. My objective is not to hurt your feelings; my objective is to make clear to you that there is basic knowledge that one needs, and which you lack. To make matters worse, you do not seem to think that this is a problem, and simply assert things that are wrong instead (for example, there is huge, HUGE, variation across cortical areas, and even within cortical areas; the basic idea of the neuron as a logical unit is woefully outdated). It is not your job to consider irrelevant findings, but it is absolutely necessary to consider findings that are critical. You clearly do not know anything about neuroscience (i.e not a single reference), which in itself is not a problem since we can't all be experts on everything, but it most definitely is a problem if you're writing a paper about a neuroscientific topic.

>>10502167
You lack a concrete definition of information.
>types of information humans percive like heat, taste, vison
All of which get sent out as electrical impulses from their specific receptor through pathways until they reach a peripheral neuron and carry on through the cortex where higher processing happens.
Neural networks in the brain are comprised of chemical, electric and chemical or just electric synapses which pass around impulses.
You just assumed artificial neural networks map "homeomorphically" to organic neural networks with the assumption information has the same structure in the organic neuron - bits.
Also props to >>10502307 for taking the time to comment on specific statements.

>>10502349
From my point of view, this person is clearly delusional to the point of no return, or he is trolling. In any case, you won't change his mind with rational discourse.

>>10502374
>delusional
probably
>to the point of no return
possibly

But this person is clearly also motivated, so I thought I'd provide unvarnished but constructive feedback. Then it's up to anon to decide what to do with it.

>>10502349
Well, that's why we need communication. That's why I posted the stuff here.

In artificial neural networks, neurons are basically the same thing. They fire to activate other neurons. I don't know how much of a "difference" you are talking about, since if it's like a completely differnet thing you shouldn't call them neurons.

>>10502362
There were two definitions. Information types in the natural world that humans are able to perceive, and information types that are further encoded in memory. If you read my article, you'll understand how they are precisely encoded in the brain does not matter.

But, of course, if bias is already reinforced in your short-term memory, it will be hard for you take my arguments seriously even if you try.

Anyway, I'll go change the parts that are questionable.

>>10502394
>In artificial neural networks, neurons are basically the same thing.
Perhaps in deep-learning networks, but this isn't even true for all artificial neural networks. Biophysically realistic network models* incorporate multiple neuron types so as to produce system-level dynamics that approximate real neural dynamics. This does not hold true for the simple feed-forward models that you exclusively consider in your paper. Their point is not to mimic true neural interactions, their point is to fulfill a particular function for which their architecture is optimized. This structure is fully orthogonal to the actual architecture of the brain, which is vastly more complex.

* these two papers are good examples:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.3645
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/26/4/1314

>I don't know how much of a "difference" you are talking about, since if it's like a completely differnet thing you shouldn't call them neurons.
That's rather ironic. By definition we should call them neurons, since they are neurons. This is where you should educate yourself. Look up some information, for example, on firing rate properties of GABAergic interneurons and cortical pyramidal neurons, and compare them. Then look up anatomy of locus coeruleus neurons, and purkinje cells, and compare those.

>>10502374
I'll just give an advice. This world is full of bitter people who do not know integrity nor respect. I've met too many people that talk behind others' back to make themselves feel better.

That's just something I wouldn't do no matter how ridiculous the situation appears. It takes a man to walk away.

And the bitter, little men come in packs because they are nothing alone. They find comfort in making others outcasts. This is the universal trait in the human animal, and education does not teach us human nature.

Don't be that kind of people.

>>10502422
>Their point is not to mimic true neural interactions
I did mention that in my paper, but perhaps you haven't read it yet. I admitted that the brain's detail biology is still unclear and, even if you can tell their differences, you might not be able to name any specific functions regarding the thinking process that they do influence. Many organs are evolved for the sake of optimization, and those can be ignored when we are just talking about the most basic central mechanism of the brain. Last time I checked, neuroscience still haven't figured that out yet, right?

What the article does, it provides a new way of thinking. Studying the composition of nerve cells alone may never give you the answer.

>>10502459
>Last time I checked, neuroscience still haven't figured that out yet, right?
You've entirely missed the point. And I mean entirely. With that, I'm leaving this thread.

>>10502459
I'm not trying to bring you down. I have treated with delusional people before. No matter how much you try to make them be reasonable, they won't be. You show signs of being delusional. You posted a paper where you claim a bunch of made-up theories without referencing any previous work, and when people tell you why that's absolutely wrong you're answering with some "Nah, I'm right" or "Ok, I'll make some small changes". There's no amount of small changes that can salvage your paper. You have to forget about it, learn the fundamentals of how to do science, and then make some actual research. Either that or find another activity.

Abandoning thread.

>>10502485
Features. Activation. Reinforcement through emotions.

Now your opinion of me is fixed. There certainly won't be any motivation to think otherwise. If you try to do so, you might even feel pain.

Regardless, thanks for the feedback. It's all part of a process.

>>10502374
>>10502392
This seems to be bipolar mania. Ive been where OP is at, just way more embarrassing.

All the motivation in the world does not help if you cant keep sane while using it. OP is happy now and will hit a major depression in a few days\weeks. It might seem weird but i`m jealous OP has mania right now, feeling is unbeatable.

>>10501817
>abstract.
It could be the worst abstract I had ever read in my life. It's a mix of an weak introduction without crucial information about the research and the paper itself. The majority of researchers and scientific just read the abstract to know if it is related to their interest. With this abstract nobody is going to read it further.
>Humans perceive more than what they express. Therefore, in this case, (...)
>Therefore, in this case,
You better learn how to redact a coherent paragraph. This is really bad constructed.
>Thus, combined with the knowledge of the property of the neuron, we have decoded the human mind and its precise inner functionality.
>we have decoded the human mind
How long have you being taking your meds?
>It is highly likely that neurons in the brain trigger a reaction, or “perception,” by firing to the respective organs: to the visual cortex (or, possibly, the temporal lobe)
Now I know you don't have any idea what you are talking about
>they are what some used to call “the unconscious mind.”
Who, who said that. You do not have any reference, this is so hard to swallow. I can no believe people still writing "papers" as it was a poetic work of art or some inspire literature fictional book. This paper is not an academic one, it looks like a review or even a pop-sci article. It not worth it reading this for the lack of structure, and references. Also, the explanations on each image may be added as appropriate captions or relevant texts.
This is not how the brain works. Neurons are important in the work of processing information but they are not the only one involved in the process. You are missing glial cells, astrocyte and all the complexity that the brain has.
The conclusion and discussion is pathetic. I do not even want to talk anything about that. Poor vocabulary, poor grammar, poor structure. I do not even speak English as my first or native language an I am aware of this. Keep working, because you need it.

Fucking hell that was a silly read OP

>>10502503
Thanks for the feedback but I will not pay too much attention to a side project I wrote for fun. I was not intending to make a breakthough on biology, and neither did I expect to gain validation or understanding.
I know where my abilities are at.

We'll see if my AGI theory is real, since I'm sure there's no possible way of convincing any of you to further understand the true brilliance of ideas behind this work. Fixed opinions cannot be altered, not without external drive.

>>10502505
>>10502518
Hmm. Maybe this attempt was a mistake. Good thing that nothing of value is lost.

>>10501817
In my humble opinion as someone not in this field:

"The basic mechanism of the mind is simple"
Seems more like it is only simple because you simplified it. Not only are neurons more complicated than nodes in a basic neural network because they have multiple channels of communication (different kinds of neurotransmitter), they are also inherently complex because of the nature of biochemistry. The neurons would not respond the same over changes in time, and would respond to changes in the environment as well. Temporal expression of different genes and production of different metabolic pathways. (Like if the brain undergoes some kind of trauma) Each cell in itself is a complex mechanism with its own responses in the pursuit of survival.

It also seems to me that some study of simple neural systems in creatures like nematodes or rats with techniques such as optogenetics would give you a much better understanding of the fundamentals of biological neural networks. As far as I know, this research is far from over, and your paper seems to me (admittedly skim reading) like it is so simplified as to not produce any knowledge beyond what is already known of neural networks (computing).

>>10502522
>I was not intending to make a breakthough on biology
>>10501972
>Besides, my ideas can literally save the world

schizo affective get help

>>10502523
Well I actually meant to add that the document was intended for AI research only and not for contribution to biology or neuroscience
then I didnt know where to fit it
>>10502532
AI will save the world though.

This understanding of intelligence itself is literally the most perfect one we have. Clear, simple. Just like the human mind. You may disregard my knowledge on neuroscience, but...

Well, nevermind.

OP you are a delusional chink that needs help.
That is my conclusion after reading your paper, and this thread.

Why do ESL's think bloviating with complicated multi-clause sentences joined by hundreds of commas and dashes makes them sound authoritative?
Distill your result into a couple paragraphs. "In this paper, I will show X, by showing Y" and start with that. Convince people quickly that they should spend their life clock trying to follow your paper.

>a schizo managed to bring intellectual discussion and constructive criticism out of /sci/
wow

>>10501827
>not respecting 1000 times folded honorable result

>>10502324

>>10502568
All while animefagging

OP here!

I don't want to insist on how correct I am. And, when bias is established, there's no way you can take me seriously.
Even though I tried to make the ideas simple, it might still take a while before you can digest them. You don't have to go through that. You can simply satisfy your herd mentality with ad hominem if you'd wish to. If reading my article makes you feel better about yourself, then that's at least some contribution. I'm not saying this in a negative way.

I'm going to revise the article so that it doesn't look like I'm talking about something I don't understand. And don't call me delusional! I'm well aware that oftentimes humans' satisfactions can be misleading. To quote my writing
"Tiny pieces of chaotic thoughts initiate a disproportionate amount of satisfaction, in which case there is likely to be no real justification. "
After all, how can the brain tell whether something is truly a success or just wishful thinking?

Anyway, R.I.P my two months. I still believe my model is world-saving; you'll understand it after you learn to make sense of your consciousness (perceptible stimulations) with the ideas of neural networks and co-activation.

...
Nevermind, of course you won't. Have a happy life.

>>10502832
"revise the article so that it doesn't look like I'm talking about something I don't understand"

Good idea, but without your assumptions of the simplicity of biology, I don't see where this is going and why this article produces any useful and original knowledge. It also doesn't summarize existing knowledge as far as I can tell.

>>10502544
>AI will save the world though
AI is a meme field and will be dead in two years. screencap this.

>>10501817
>the true brilliance of ideas behind this work
>my ideas can literally save the world
>there's a lot of new things I invented and it's hard to digest in a short time
You seem to think that you're some kind of genius. But, if you can't convey your ideas in a clear and concise manner, then what makes you think that your ideas are worth considering?

>>10501817
>omnescomplexity.com
>the greatest project of our time
You look and sound like a smug asshole.

>>10503532

>>10502832
>I don't want to insist on how correct I am.
>I still believe my model is world-saving
Stop pretending to be modest you pompous faggot.

That was horrendous. I can pick it apart for you after my classes, but you’d probably just take my ideas too.

>>10503524
It takes a lot to explain the nature of intelligence from scratch without ambiguity. And I still believe I was successful with that.

You don't have to think much about things you don't get. The basic idea is too simple. Neural activations that compose reactions vary with different stimuli. These activations further stimulate other neurons to varying degrees, creating the "thinking process." The thing that differs human intelligence with computer programs is that neural activation is nondiscrete, meaning that it presents many potentials to compose different reactions when combined with other stimuli. With that, human reaction becomes highly flexible to different combinations of input. That, along with the plasticity of unconscious neural networks that connect different reactions, paves the way for effective learning.

The model easily explains every aspect of human intelligence and reaction, every "stream of consciousness." I will not say things like "nobody has ever done that," since this sitmulus will probably trigger certain of your action potentials to take bias and prejudice into effect. You understand that "trust" and "disregard" are both already partially activated even if you do not feel them, and the latter needs only a little push before it is fully activated, after which you feel the stimulation and further respond negatively to my wisdom.

However, I do need to rework on the article. Made too many unnecessary assertions.
>>10503880
With suggestion, confusion will often further trigger denial through chain effects, even though the evaluation is not objective based on the original input.

>>10503532
If you want an autograph just say it

>>10503922
>It takes a lot to explain the nature of intelligence from scratch without ambiguity. And I still believe I was successful with that.
The problem is that literally everyone in this thread disagrees.

Even what you wrote down just now was nonsensical. You do not think about the words that you write.

>switching between 'I' and 'we' already in the second paragraph
>not a single fucking reference

ain't gonna read that shit

>>10503936
Disagrees without reason, only confusion. What's the criticism? What's the flaw? Of course, you're going to answer that since it's completely nonsense, you don't need to point out the problem.

You see, new knowledge must be converted into a combination of things you previously knew so you can make sense of it. In this case, it might just be too novel and you're filled with negative emotion you do not even want to think about it. If I mention one more word that you can't make sense of, you're going to simply think of me as insane. It's just like adding more fuel to the fire. Simply problem of stimulus and activation.

>>10503974
>What's the criticism? What's the flaw?
The flaw is that it is nonsensical. Not because they don't understand. But because what you have written does not make sense. This is your fault, because you are not able to write properly and follow basic logical steps. It's not their fault theirs.

>>10504001
You might just be correct. Many sections were shoved in and I did not consider the consistency. A wrong estimation of people's ability to understand new concepts.
Perhaps I should just highlight the main points and give each term a clear definition. There's no need to even write formally if people can relate to it.

>>10504009
>Advanced concepts can be converted into dimensions of information humans can perceive and, through
learning, modeled with various action potentials to merge with other information and realize further applications.
explain these "advanced concepts".

>>10504009
If you want people to take it seriously, you need to completely rewrite this thing.

Do the abstract last, but spend a lot of time on it because the impatient reader will use is to decide if the rest is worth reading or not.

>A wrong estimation of people's ability to understand new concepts.
Again, the problem is not that people are unable to understand new concepts, the problem is that you are not good at articulating new concepts so that they can be understood or not.

>give each term a clear definition
This is absolutely necessary. You cannot rely on folk-psychological or intuitive notions of what words mean. You need to clearly define terms so that there can be no ambiguity. Given your ambitions, a mathematical description is needed so that terms can be understood quantitatively.

>There's no need to even write formally if people can relate to it.
Yes there is. Because formality removes subjectivity that leads to ambiguity.

>>10504009
>Therefore, the brain (or a Deep Learning program) can
>be confused due to the inherent ambiguity of one-dimensional information; however, when an additional
>source/datatype of activation is considered—in this case, audio—the added factor brings a whole new set
>of total combinations and possibilities, thereby dramatically increasing the chance of correctly identifying
>or modeling the information.

Incorrect; the brain is called an organ. Additionally, anyone can "imagine" different types of senses and experience these senses through memory. Pretty straight forward logic. You need to use references next time because no one will read your paper if you don't have ample evidence of proved theories and anatomical structure.

>>10501865
>wonders why people won't read his paper
>is an ass about any criticism or critique at all and calls others dumb
>writes in the style of a fedora-wearing, katana-wielding sperglord
Sorry, hard pass. Get out of academia, you absolute brainlet.

>posts frog in the OP
>posts anime
>is retarded
The only surprising thing about that is nothing

>>10502459
>brain's detail biology still unclear
>attempts to explain neurons
what?

>>10504019
Okay.

I don't know what you are familiar with, so I'll just give a simple example. Advanced concepts, such as any well known mathematical theories and equations, have the same mechanism as a simple concept.

When you think of a grape, what do you feel? Some visual representation of it, or maybe a little taste in the mouth. These are not much, because the word grape alone is not a strong stimulus.

When you initially tried to learn the concept of grape, a simple visual stimulation is probably all you have. However, as you learn, and as the grape is always connected to the taste of sweetness, when you again think of the word grape, it fires an action potential. It partially activate the taste, aside from the visual representation.

Then, when I ask you what a grape tastes like, you are not going to think that this is nonsense. Because the information has been connected.

>>10504022
I'm talking about omitting a certain degree of formality. People have to relate with their own personal experiences.

>>10504041
This is not anatomical. This is a theory of information which did not exist before I invented it. People did not have the slightest idea about co-activation with different information types, and data analysis was basically just about finding patterns and useful features. There didn't exist a single concept of what I said. I don't know how to word it otherwise but I'm being honest.

>>10504080
Well, I'm just attempting to explain intelligence.

>>10504087
>I'm talking about omitting a certain degree of formality. People have to relate with their own personal experiences.
Yeah. And I'm saying that this is the exact opposite of what you should do.

>>10501817
govt has to regulate AI desu .
or we'll go on streets with " de tuk ur jeerbs" signs

>>10504087
>I'll just give a simple example
You're describing hebbian learning, which is neither new nor sufficient to explain intelligence.

>>10504087
78 replies 32 posters

god bless you op
get help.

>>10504087
Okay. I'm going to recommend that you should give up. All you do is move away from criticism using red herring fallacy and subjective bias. If you want to get better, think about what the other anons are criticizing. Be them, and try to think on their point of view. Either you do that, or you're not going to succeed.

>>10501817
I ain't clicking that shit, nigga

>>10503532
>a fucking fern in his suit pocket

>>10504148
>nor sufficient to explain intelligence
It is more than sufficient when you understand how it functions on a large scale. People think by connecting objects with objects cannot possibly lead to intelligence, and that's correct. It doesn't make sense, right? Well, this article explains exactly how complex reactions can be made through simple mechanisms.
>>10504165
I don't know which reply yours was
was it >>10504041 ?
Read your post again. See if the statements you made have anything to do with the things you quoted. I was confused as well, since this is not even just about missing the point. The "criticism" was fundamentally unrelated to any of my statement.

>Incorrect; the brain is called an organ.
Incorrect what? Where did I say anything about that?
>anyone can "imagine" different types of senses and experience these senses through memory
Did I say something that contradicts this statement? What is this even about?
Is this really my problem?

>>10504152
Guess I'll just let it go

There are many references and tools available to look up what you're trying to research. You need to make use of it because now you're entire theoretical framework doesn't have any backing from other sources. So that makes it less worthwhile and to be regarded with more suspicion. It also makes no effort to put existing vs new knowledge gained for your paper into perspective. A test would also be needed for the model you propose (probably multiple) and then you can find out if its true or not. This is why you use a literature study so you're researching in the right direction instead of just pulling something up that results in nothing at all.

>>10504186
>It is more than sufficient
So what sets humans apart from other animals? Hebbian learning works exactly the same in mice as in humans.

>>10504206
>Hebbian learning works exactly the same in mice as in humans
Exactly. The system of biological intelligence is universal, although there are physiological differences.

First of all, humans have many neurons. More neurons means more memory, and more reactions can be recorded. As I said earlier, the more potential choices the neurons that are activated by the stimuli fire to, the better the system adapts to the situation. The activation can be much more flexibly adjusted to details.

Second of all, human invented language. Imagine what you can do without language. Is it really that much better than what a mouse can do?

These are all way too basic and I think I've explained them well in the article. I don't want to talk about it anymore.
>>10504198
ok

>>10504231
>humans have many neurons.
But whales and elephants have more neurons than humans do. Why are they not more intelligent than humans?

>human invented language
Are you suggesting that we have specialized language neurons? In that case the 'monotony' part of your argument does not hold. If not, then your hypothesis would predict that other animals should be capable of language to the same degree as humans, which they aren't. Either your hypothesis contradicts itself or it makes predictions that are known to be false.

>>10504261
Language needs no special design, though I do believe some human organs are optimized for language. Animals have their own languages and tools of communication.
>Why are they not more intelligent than humans
Says who? If you were a whale born in the ocean and lived there for the entirety of your life, do you think you will be capable of the complex thinking you're having right now? No. And, when you don't have tools, don't have writing and have to walk on four legs, what can you do? Organisms don't just evolve as they like. Not to mention that brain not only does thinking, it also has to maintain bodily functions.

Again, you don't get the point of the system I described. Not in the slightest. Like others, you think things human can do are all distinctly designed functions. But my theory is as universal as can be when you understand it.

Nevermind. What's the point. All of you probably just glanced through all the arguments without assimilating anything.

>>10504295
> If you were a whale born in the ocean ... do you think you will be capable of the complex thinking you're having right now? No
There you go. You've just made my argument for me. Your hypothesis predicts that the answer to the above question should be yes, since Hebbian learning works the same in whales as it does in humans.
>you think things human can do are all distinctly designed functions
I don't think that at all.
>you don't get the point of the system I described. Not in the slightest.
I understand perfectly the statements that you have written here. They're simply not logically consistent. Not with themselves, nor with reality. And when I point out those inconsistencies you tell me there's no point because I won't understand? Go fuck yourself you arrogant prick. I'm done with your thread.

>>10504311
>should be yes
Hebbian learning through water and fish
vs.
Hebbian learning through texts, culture, ideas, math and communication
I would argue there are some differences.

Also, you are just scartching the surface with the most basic questions that in no way disqualify my main arguments in the article. Nothing will come out of this.

This is the cringest thread I have read in months, jesus fucking christ OP.

>people still replying to this schizo retard

>>10504333
>inb4 cringiest thread of the month

>>10502307
Isn't this the abstract, though? Do statements really need qualifying in an abstract? I'm genuinely wondering.

It is poorly written though. "Let us, therefore, introduce..." Good Lord. "Represents a definitive victory" what the fuck does this even mean.

>>10501817
Why would you post this here of all places?

>>10504334
>>10504375
>>10504333
no u
>>10504426
was out of things to shitpost with
>>10504416
The modelling of one's inner stimulations successfully created a system of intelligence. The evidence is literally inside of you. Well, of course, some people may think these kinds of evidences are subjective. Ironically, they are the ones who are not scientific. What happens, happens. It doesn't make a difference if it's inside your consciousness. Also, it's not like the observations are not reproducible. By far I have not yet seen one poster who asked me how their thinking process cannot be fitted with the model. Not one person even remotely mentioned about the problem with the neural networks and the activation. If you don't understand it, don't shit on it. Fucking sheep.

Even if I completely got the biology wrong, it means I've created a new system of intelligence, which is even a greater achievement. The advices are helpful though.

>inb4 cringe
>inb4 schizo
Did you notice that the words that I just said trigger more emotions in you than, say, if it's the first time you've seen it and it's said by a famous researcher?

Bias is easy to explain. See "short-term memory."

>skim through this garbage
>david stars
>fruits with jewish hats


Kill yourself, OP. You almost made me fall with your tricks. This is why Jewish nepotism is a decease in academia.

>>10502005
Looks like the best /sci/ schizo poster is back

keep it up tooker

>>10504473
>>>/x/

>>10501817
>this summarize op paper

>Due to the simple nature of this work, no reliance on other research was required
absolutely abhorrent

>>10502005
The Riemann hypothesis is defined for the STANDARD complex numbers, not your crazy, likely inconsistent extension. Of course the hypothesis is false if I define some weird object A such that zeta(A) = 0, Re(A) =/= 1/2, which is essentially all you (or Tooker, if the author is really in prison and you're just pretending).

>>10504473
>Even if I completely got the biology wrong, it means I've created a new system of intelligence, which is even a greater achievement.

>>10504545
>>10504505
>>10504504
Before AGI is invented, this might be the last time humans ever have to try. So I'll go through it. It's the last time you can enjoy science and invention yourself before machines take it all.

>>10504507
If I needed to list specific research results, I would. Should I quote the people who discovered neurons? I just thought it was unnecessary for such a pure and beautiful system. Used simple language to describe something that can get so unimaginably complex.

Mathematically formulating the dynamic system is another story though. There are many, many factors to consider, which I should be working on now.

>>10504579
no no, see >>10504504

Now this is /sci/

>>10504579
106 replies, 46 posters

OP you've been talking to yourself for two days now... get help

>>10504498
I don’t know who’s worse. There’s that diagnosed schizo, who admitted he fried his brain with drugs, who spams links to unreliable papers, and rejects any and all disagreement. And then we have ching here ^^^^^^^^ and here vvvvvvvv

>>10504579
>>10504579
OP im inspired where did you learn all this information? I'm a total brainlet that only knows mathematics more so on the logical side so really I only know numbers and nonsense assumptions based off asumptions.

I hardly get anythread here but im assuming the area of field your targetting at is biology? idk mind helping me out so I can contribute to this discussion?

Thanks friend

>(btw i hated on you earlier on this thread because its easy to be bitter and direct my self-hatred towards someone admittlingly being brave and open with their ideas, mb)

>>10504579
Thanks for the idea OP. I've now sent in a patent application. Funny thing is, I think I understood your idea better than you did. Don't worry, the world will be better off with your invention in my hands. I will know how to use it.

>>10504840
now that you posted this for internet points with your ip adderess logged into this sight he can simply repeal and even seek further action as you selfishly admitted that its not yours at all.... nice one retard I think i'll report this to this site just
to fuck with you

>>10504840
>>10504845
lol
>>10504825
>field your targetting at is biology
Bio-inspired computer software
>where did you learn all this information
Everything is hypothesized based on the patterns of my personal cognitive experiences when faced with different combinations of stimuli (images, words). I believe it is the neural networks that connected the stimuli to my reaction (perception).

If you are familiar with artificial neural networks, you'll understand that different features will trigger different outcome when they are sufficiently presented. However, ANNs are feature detectors, and they stop working after identifying the input and label it as existing knowledge (artificially defined labels, such as "cat" or "dog").

Inside the brain, I doubt there exists anything to detect, because they are not directly connected to the outside environment, unlike the human eye. The data processed by the eye goes into the inner structure of the brain, whereas it further triggers precomposed reactions as it goes through neural networks.

If you want to learn more about ANN, I recommend https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aircAruvnKk&t=3s

>>10504868
>>10504868

>>10504825 <-me here
>Inside the brain, I doubt there exists anything to detet
If so how do feel about unconcious motives and the anthropomorphism of god like entities? And also do we not have souls if we cannot identify them?

Loved to hear your dissertations on conciousness and unconciousness as this is where your paper seems to be lacking with some misproofs and writing errors of-course.

I'll check out the link aswell ty

t.reading freud,jung and lacan and minoring in psych

>>10504898
>unconcious motives
I don't know what exactly you are referring to. Under certain circumstances, some behaviors and thoughts may become more easily triggered because of... chemicals in the brain. But you might not realize this until you actually observe the change in your behaviors. I do think that the "motive" does not exist as an independent force, and all that was changed was the physiology of some neurons and certain neurotransmitters the brain produces.
The motive is a state that measures how easily some behaviors can be triggered when presented with enough stimuli.

>anthropomorphism of god like
Humans anthropomorphize everything, even the brain. It's much easier for people to relate if god is described like a person, right?

I also said that consciousness is just different types of stimulations mixing together. Body senses, images, sounds.. Not all brain activities cause these stimulations. There are dedicated organs responsible for producing and recording these perceptions.

If consciousness was something magical and something we can control, we wouldn't feel pain if we didn't want to. It's all forced upon us because of our biological make-up.

>>10503016
Just like Vtuber
t.gookmoot

>>10504327
>Hebbian learning through water and fish
Oh, so you're even more of a dumbass then I thought you were and are apparently even unable to Google things.

Hebbian learning is a cellular mechanism that works the same in all animals you fucking idiot.

>>10501817
>"yesterday i learned about neural networks: the paper"
uggghhhhhhhh

>>10504327
>Nothing will come out of this.
This sums up your work perfectly.

>>10503974
You are the complete definition of a crank. Seriously, think about the shit you're saying and whether or not it actually has predictive power.

>>10504327
>my ideas can save the world
>whales are fish
OK buddy

>>10505941
he's not a crank just a teenager

>>10505947
Unfortunately he's not, see: >>10503532

>>10505950
oh shit

>>10502522
>a side project I wrote for fun
Then why is your entire website centered on it?

>>10505950
Still looks like a teenager to me

>>10505946
>>10505928
Different stimuli result in different neural activations, thus the brain becomes differently wired based on your living environment. If all you could see were fish and water in your whole life, you wounldn't magically know math and language like a human just because your cellular structure is capable of learning. Thus, you will not be capable of complex thinking, because your brain does not even know what to think.

>Hebbian learning is a cellular mechanism that works the same in all animals you fucking idiot
>whales are fish

So this is the power of /sci/.
>>10505941
Like I stated, not an attempt to prove scientific truth. It's a systematical idea that models intelligent behavior and cognition, and it's aimed for a reproduction of intelligent system.

>>10505956
The paper was mentioned once in the entire website. And it's not like the theories are incorrect. Bio-inspired AGI will be an utter breakthrough, and the basic ideas I proposed far surpassed any previous understanding on artificial neural networks. It should be realized that thinking does not happen in the feature detectors.

I was doubtful about the overall expression, though, so I posted it here for some feedback. I can write whatever I want for now, but eventually I need to respect the results of detailed scientific discoveries.

>>10505950
>>10505954
>>10505980
How old do I look, exactly?

>>10506232
>Different stimuli result in different neural activations, thus the brain becomes differently wired based on your living environment. If all you could see were fish and water in your whole life, you wounldn't magically know math and language like a human just because your cellular structure is capable of learning. Thus, you will not be capable of complex thinking, because your brain does not even know what to think.
Obviously, you fucking moron. I never claimed that your hypothesis predicts that whales and elephants *will* develop language and math to the same degree as humans.

I claimed that your hypothesis predicts that whales and elephants *are capable of* developing language and math to the same degree as humans, since you're saying that the difference between species lie only in environment and number of neurons. Given that the cellular mechanism that is central to your account is the same across animals, then a change in environment should abolish inter-species differences, according to your account.

How are you not grasping that this is problematic?

>>10506294
Do you really think this guy has read Chomsky or anything like that? It's obvious to everyone that he's completely unaware of the literature related to everything he wants to discuss.

>>10506294
I never asserted that intelligent capabilities depend only on the number of neurons and the environment, but they are highly influential factors. Those are just two examples I gave you.

There are physiological differences in animals that determine the excitability of neurons and overall emotional responses to a variety of stimuli. For humans to learn language and math, interaction and reward are crucial. Other animals lack the cultural immersion and interaction with humans.

And what exactly do you mean "developing language"? Certainly, elephants are not capable of pronouncing human words. Different animals hear sounds at different frequencies, and humans are optimized to recognize each other's speech, just like they optimized to recognize faces. Moreover, animals do communicate in many ways humans do not understand. Larger animals may need a lot of neurons to control movements and body functions, and elephants have more neurons in the cerebellum.

In the model, the property of the neuron is meant to mimic human responses that are both physiologically distinct and culturally influenced. When taken down to the basic level, humans do not respond that much differently to the environment than other animals. All animals can learn a certain range of patterns, prediction and behaviors, and that was perfectly demonstrated in the article.
Humans do stand out a little bit because they can use tools and learned to use tools because of their environment. Teaching a whale to use tools would be useless, no matter how many neurons it has. Do you know that monkeys can remember numbers much better in a short period of time than humans? There are specialized physiological differences, but I'm arguing about the most basic mechanisms. No organisms came to these specialized designs without evolution. They all started from the basics.

>>10502324
Dear lord what a fucking cringelord you are

>>10506375
>I never asserted that intelligent capabilities depend only on the number of neurons and the environment
You stated this in a 'first of all', 'second of all' type argument here: >>10504231
I don't particularly care for technical 'gotcha' arguments, but you must admit that you omitted to mention that there is a 'third of all', and 'nth of all'. This is pretty characteristic of the way you argue, in which you ignore things that you have previously said and it makes for a strenuous discussion.

>There are physiological differences in animals that determine the excitability of neurons
Now we're getting somewhere. Do you understand that this contradicts the monotony part of your argument? If we take what you have written seriously, then the quoted sentence should not hold true. In your model, you are conceptualizing neurons as homogeneous entities when you yourself here admit that they are not. It's self-contradicting, as I have pointed out earlier, but you missed that point.

>Teaching a whale to use tools would be useless, no matter how many neurons it has.
Let's try to pin down exactly what makes you say this. Is it because it grew up in a different environment? Or is it because its neurons function differently, innately?

>>10504505
i liked the apple with teeth better

>>10506232
>OP equates whales with fish
>does not see that he did this
>So this is the power of /sci/.

>>10506431
>monotony part of your argument
Specialization does not equal fundamental differences. A program with the same function can be programmed in many ways, although some are efficient while the rest take up unnecessary processing power. Think also the pixel density in an image. Although the format is the same, the components are expressed differently.

What I'm inventing is the basic language of intelligence that does not yet take optimized functions into account. The language can be used to express roughly all cognitive processes using the most central logic of the biological neuron. Of course, I focused mainly on non-feature-detectors inside the brain, as the feature detectors do function differently but they are already mimicked with existing ANN.

>Is it because it grew up in a different environment? Or is it because its neurons function differently, innately
Both of course. But the differences should not be fundamental, and they can be expressed using the design language of my neural networks. There are many parameters that can be adjusted when we digitize them into computer simulations. And those are going to result in extreme differences between certain ranges of neurons.

Of course, there are no evidence that says when you give whales hands they are guaranteed to not learn to use tools, and detailed physiological difference between human brain and whale brain is not something that is clear.

>>10506470
>Hebbian learning through water and fish
I meant that whales see primarily fish in their environment. I also said
>Hebbian learning through texts
Do you think I meant humans are texts?

not written in LaTeX. not gonna read it

>>10506480
>Specialization does not equal fundamental differences.
Monotony does not equal specialization. If you explicitly state that:
>billions of neurons in the brain seem to exhibit few patterns
and
>no clear distinction has been discerned in regard to their function
>these monotonous neurons
is the reader expected to assume the direct opposite? Namely, that specialized neurons do in fact exist, and they exhibit marked differences between species and even between different parts of the brain within species? You see, words mean things. And if you write the exact opposite of what you implicitly assume, then you're going to run into problems with your 'model'.

And aside from this, one can ask what constitute 'fundamental' differences. One can model a pyramidal neuron relatively well with a set of differential equations, but the parameters that govern such an equation need to be rigorously modified to model an interneuron. The math remains the same but the parameter space does not. Obviously all neurons work via electrochemical gradients, but that is where the comparison ends when it comes down to modeling things as they are in real tissue. This is something that you completely ignore and seem to be unwilling to discuss.

Finally, and probably also most importantly, the fundamental issue I take with your approach is that you do not seem to consider that 'discovering' how a particular property of a neural network *can* come about (assuming that you have even done this, which is very much up for debate), does not imply that in real systems this property *does* come about in this way necessarily.

>>10506512
>is the reader expected to assume the direct opposite
It was meant to provide ease of understanding to guide the reader through specific logics. Turns out it was neither easy nor rigorous.
>fundamental' differences
Neurons essentially convert external and certain internal stimuli into reactions through neural networks. They do share fundamental characteristics, input, activation and output. To discuss how evolution first emerged to make the design of neurons such a universal feature in intelligent systems, there must be a universal logic that explains the flexibility of animals' reactions when they are faced with different stimuli. The article was meant to do exactly that, hypothesizing the evolution from the most primitive perspective.

In computers, a neuron can access a node without physical travel path, and there's no need to design neurons that specifically regulate functions such as hormones and heart rate. Biology needs a lot of special designs that can keep the physical body alive, but these are not necessary in computer softwares. Aside from the ones that are highly optimized toward intelligent reactions, I think we can ignore many of the brain's physiological designs when it comes to AI.

I did make unnecessary assertions, as no one can be exactly sure of the path of how evolution came to be. Don't take it too seriously, though; if the article was meant to provide rigorous and convincing evidence I would have done a lot more research.

>>10506597
I don't know why you stopped taking your lithium but you need to get back on that shit now.

>>10506597
>Neurons essentially convert external and certain internal stimuli into reactions
> They do share fundamental characteristics, input, activation and output.
Agreed, but this is rather trivial.

> there must be a universal logic that explains the flexibility of animals' reactions when they are faced with different stimuli.
Sure. But the question remains whether you have identified it. As I already mentioned, a model of how a feature can emerge says nothing about how a feature does emerge. In fact, if the model makes simplifying assumptions, and yours certainly does, then the likelihood that the identified mechanism mimics reality is low.

Your goal, as stated in the article, is to understand the brain. Now, after much teeth pulling on my part, your goal seems to have shifted and it seems to be to understand AI. These are very different things, and that fundamentally undermines the arguments you have been trying to make.

>>10506652
There will be no AI that mimics human intelligence if the most basic mechanism of the brain is not understood. The thing about great ideas is that they can be simplified. Before you understand it, some questions may just seem infinitely complicated.

Although I made simplifying assumptions, that does not mean systems emerged from this basic mechanism cannot grow extremely abstract and complex when observed on a larger scale.

The diagrams seemed simple because I organized them that way; I sorted related information together and put them in little bubbles for ease of understanding. Imagine how the uncountable neurons in just one of those little bubbles might be located separately in the biological brain, and all their connections that are fired accross the brain when activated. And that will be combined with the activation of another cluster, until eventually another collective activation is emerged. During this process, the property of the neurons and their connections also change accordingly. It's not easy to even imagine it visually. It only seemed simple because I wanted it to. And I should indeed consider advanced mechanisms that further optimize the structure, such as the brain's ability to utilize reward prediction error with the use of different types of neurons. Regardless, the design language itself is viable.

>>10506675
>the most basic mechanism of the brain is not understood
We're going in circles. You cannot learn new things about the brain with your approach. It is critical that you grasp this point before the discussion can move forward, so I will repeat myself yet again: a model that results in a particular feature of a system says nothing about the true generative mechanism of that feature in the real system. Does that make sense to you at all?

>he diagrams seemed simple because...
That is not what I meant by simplifying assumptions. There's nothing wrong with representing networks this way, it's done all the time and easy to scale. What I mean by simplifying assumptions is that biological complexity *in function* is ignored altogether. This only holds if your aim is to understand the brain itself, not if all you're doing is designing an AI. So perhaps you should clarify what the goal is, because this last post of yours does seem to imply that you want to understand actual brain function.

>>10506697
I understand what you mean. You're saying the brain may use a completely different system whose outward expression somewhat matches my hypothesis, but the latter may be completely wrong in terms of how its inner functioning logic matches that of the biological brain. And you may be correct.

I do still think my model is a good take on how a system can flexibly respond to different situations, though; the direction is not only to completely describe and model this particular system that I hypothesized, but also to digitally recreate it using various measures to test AGI.

>>10506723
>You're saying the brain may use a completely different system whose outward expression somewhat matches my hypothesis, but the latter may be completely wrong in terms of how its inner functioning logic matches that of the biological brain.
Correct. And without mathematical formalism there is no way to test whether your model can be used as an inference device; in terms of being informative about brain function, the model is useless.

>I do still think my model is a good take on how a system can flexibly respond to different situations, though;
Perhaps, perhaps not. There is no way to tell. Your model is agnostic about biological reality, as we have just agreed on.

>the direction is not only to completely describe and model this particular system that I hypothesized, but also to digitally recreate it using various measures to test AGI.
This is another matter, and for that your model may or may not be useful. The question now is: if your model describes a generative mechanism of AGI, why have you not created an AGI? If an actual model is in place then an AGI should already exist.

>>10506736
>why have you not created an AGI
It's easier said than done. There are many parameters and factors that need to be considered whose complexity far exceeds what is needed to adjust feature detectors (i.e. popular Deep Learning research)

For example, how many neurons should be responsible for the pixels in a visual memory? Can these neurons be co-used for other distinct images? How do we adjust the firing rate of neurons, since the system has now just become dynamic? How do we implement neurotransmitters? How does the learning rate in the inner system differ from the training of feature detectors?

I have only just finished hypothesizing the possibilities. Even if this leads to a successful path, it will take a lot of time and effort.

>>10506763
>There are many parameters and factors that need to be considered
If you have not considered them, then you do not have a model. You have a schematic, that's all.

And with that, I hope you see now that your accomplishments are, to put it mildly, overstated.

I would wish you good luck, and in fact I do hope you succeed, but if this thread is anything to go by, I don't think that will happen.

>>10506789
>I don't think that will happen
You do realize that's the only thing I've ever heard and will ever hear, right? Doesn't stop me.

>>10506812
>You do realize that's the only thing I've ever heard and will ever hear, right?
Obviously I don't since I don't know you.
>Doesn't stop me.
Good for you. Enjoy flushing your time and money down the drain.

>>10501817
>>10501899

>>10502006
>Others even think there are *****calculations***** going on with the neurons. That's fucking bullshit.
Retard, that is literally what some brain cells do:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11347

fucking anime posters really are a blight arent they