Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness | Issue 121 | Philosophy Now
A FYI article about consciousness.
I'm only 3 paragraphs in - but you may be interested. We were talking about consciousness the other day (well - mentioned it).
I wonder what these guys (and girls) think about it all.
If you read it - let me know what you think?
Or if anyone else reads it - let me know what you think.
haha I'm now 7 paragraphs into the article.Wow. Some things I agree with. Some I don't. And a lot I hadn't heard before. If nothing else it says I need to read more about this.
Do you mean like these?That's certainly a kinder explanation than the thought that you are just looking for further opportunities to deliver snide little ad hominems.
And yet there is a great deal of the child in your self-centred attitudes.
You seem not to understand the difference ...
I think he's just trying another snow job.
Do I detect symptoms of the "Glass House" syndrome?You were the one on the hook and you are still there, wriggling pointlessly.
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks" (Act III, Scene II of Hamlet).Really? The criticisms in items 1 and 4 were germane to the posters opinions expressed in those threads and as such are not "snide ad hominens". (Well they might be snide, but they certainly are not ad hominems.)
Item3 was a humourous comment directed at the content, but I guess humour is alien to you.
Item 2 sounds like a pertinent observation. If you want some genuine examples of my ad hominens I'll search some out for you. Just ask. In the meantime do try to get over yourself.*
*Oh, look. There's one with which to start your collection.
I think Tononi and his team have made some very useful advances, and I'm pretty sure you won't get consciousness without the kind of integrated information they have described. However, several examples of simple arrays of logic gates have been described that would have far higher Φ than humans, yet would clearly not be capable of the kind of organised information processing necessary for consciousness.The Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness | Issue 121 | Philosophy Now
A FYI article about consciousness.
I'm only 3 paragraphs in - but you may be interested. We were talking about consciousness the other day (well - mentioned it).
I wonder what these guys (and girls) think about it all.
If you read it - let me know what you think?
Or if anyone else reads it - let me know what you think.
2 questions from a non math person:Another problem confronting cosmologists is the 'cosmic coincidence problem'.
As the universe expands the scale factor 'a' changes with time.
The matter density of the universe decreases with time according to;
The radiation density decreases as;
The dark energy density remains constant;
This leads to an amazing coincidence that after 14 billion years of expansion the matter density and dark energy density are equivalent today at the current cosmological background temperature Tₒ.
2 questions from a non math person:
1. Why is this coincidence a "problem" for cosmologists?
2. Why is matter density over a^3 (which makes sense), but radiation density over a^4?
I guess this is what I dont get. Isnt the number of photons per a^3 the energy density? # of photons per volume? Or does each photon also lose energy as it occupies more net space (which is what Im getting from your explanation)?....So the photon number density goes down in the same fashion (1/a^3) as the matter density, but the energy also goes down as 1/a, so the radiation energy density goes as 1/a^4.
You also need to consider the photon energy is inversely proportional to the wavelength λ.I guess this is what I dont get. Isnt the number of photons per a^3 the energy density? # of photons per volume? Or does each photon also lose energy as it occupies more net space (which is what Im getting from your explanation)?
2 questions from a non math person:
1. Why is this coincidence a "problem" for cosmologists?
Glad you got something of a read out of the article (I’m still only half way through - keep putting it down and coming back to it)I think Tononi and his team have made some very useful ……. ……. ……..but it's just part of a much bigger picture involving organization.
Ohhh. Interesting. (I had always thought of redshift as a relative thing, relative to a moving-away observer, while the wavelength of light emitted from the radiating object would just be whatever it is relative to the object itself.)You also need to consider the photon energy is inversely proportional to the wavelength λ.
As the universe expands the wavelength increases due to redshift and photon energy decreases.
Hence the photon (radiation) energy density decreases as (1/a)(1/a³) = 1/a⁴ as the universe expands.
You are thinking of Doppler shift, cosmological redshift is a different animal.Ohhh. Interesting. (I had always thought of redshift as a relative thing, relative to a moving-away observer, while the wavelength of light emitted from the radiating object would just be whatever it is relative to the object itself.)
Cosmological Redshift | COSMOSAlthough cosmological redshift at first appears to be a similar effect to the more familiar Doppler shift, there is a distinction. In Doppler Shift, the wavelength of the emitted radiation depends on the motion of the object at the instant the photons are emitted. If the object is travelling towards us, the wavelength is shifted towards the blue end of the spectrum, if the object is travelling away from us, the wavelength is shifted towards the red end. In cosmological redshift, the wavelength at which the radiation is originally emitted is lengthened as it travels through (expanding) space. Cosmological redshift results from the expansion of space itself and not from the motion of an individual body.
I guess this is what I dont get. Isnt the number of photons per a^3 the energy density? # of photons per volume? Or does each photon also lose energy as it occupies more net space (which is what Im getting from your explanation)?
It's all about how density impacts curvature and evolution of spacetime. It is energy that creates curvature (or its mass equivalent). The energy density of radiation is (#photons*mean_energy)/volume.
I've been following Tononi's work for a long time...Glad you got something of a read out of the article (I’m still only half way through - keep putting it down and coming back to it)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?