sent2null space

I've given some thought to the recent research published by a team of Scientists that the large scale structure of the Universe looks a lot like the small scale structure of neuronal connections and like the planet scale structure of the connections between computers on the internet. Here is my explanation for why this is so (yes, this is the type of conversation I prefer to have to the detriment of my dating life) it's simple. From exploration of the class of equations known as differential equations we know that defining the initial conditions of an equation gives rise to a set of solutions for those initial conditions that range often over continuous space. Even if the solutions are not continuous the variation in variables (known as the order of the equation) can be infinite, leading to an open set of possible solutions to the initial equation. Thus for sufficiently chosen initial conditions any arbitrary solution can be identified for any given equation. It turns out...

Consider this: Assuming that we are in a simulation of the ancestry of beings in another Universe, the question of the finite evolution of the Universe that those beings inhabits still subjects them to what we know about how the Universe is constructed no? Would they not also be constrained by the forces of nature to design and build their simulation (us) and therefor aren't they also embedded and constrained as well. Now, let's assume that they are a top level lifeform, meaning they themselves were NOT created as part of another Universes creation event...can we explore (either rigorously or by logic) whether or not this assertion is probable?? Is it possible that they are a top level being and in fact what is the likelihood of top level beings being the creators of our Universe. I think if we accept the previous hypothesis, that all beings the simulated and the simulators are constrained by the limits of a common physics then we must conclude that if the variation ...

It's very important first to understand that evolutionary processes do not have a causative role in all evolved behaviors or traits. Often species responses to various stimuli are simply that responses to either stimuli in presence or absence and not a behavior that has evolutionary causation. Grief is a perfect example of such a response. It is a reaction to the end of a continuous stream of signals that otherwise would come from an individuals (or items) presence and represents a momentary set of *shocks* at the re-realization at the loss when need presents. "Need" can be as simple as the desire to talk to a person who is gone or hear their laughter. Unlike the things we surround ourselves with...which we experience sensorially only in a limited band of ways (and thus impress networks in our brain in an equally limited way) The influence of individuals we've been close to on our brain networks is extensive...especially when those histories go back to childhoo...

Often I've had conversation with those in long term relationships who have through the years grown apart as a red hot passion reduced to burn as no more than a dull ember. I've often thought to myself as some one who has been in Love of deep intensity but as of now is free of those motivations, that passion and Love as we define them today will soon be as extinct as Short Faced Bear .  These independent qualities are in a slow process of revolution as we have both evolved as a primate species and through the creation of new modes of social organization, methods for acquiring the necessary items of survival and success and finding optimal modes for living with one another in the mostly monogamous relationships that we engage in. The revolution is being accelerated by an additional recent factor about our ability to survive on this planet that is due to our ability now to directly modulate the genetic information of living beings without risk of cancer. This discovery of ...

I've been steeped in though regarding the causative biological truths that are behind the emergence of a cognitive agent in human and non human animals. In my past postings I've explored the idea that consciousness emerges from the dynamic inter play of memories stored in regions roughly allocated to processing the inputs from sensations across the human sensory landscape. This grossly is comprised by the 5 senses, olfaction, audition, visual sensation, gustatory sense, somatosensory sensation...(senses of balance and acceleration are also senses but not usually grouped with the above). The problem with trying to recreate a dynamic cognitive agent lies not just in simply reproducing how the brain stores away the sensory information gathered from the respective sensory organs and relayed to the processing regions of the brain, it also includes the problem (for purposes of emerging these abilities de novo say via an artificial substrate) of needing to emerge the hierarchy...

In previous posts on the subject of super mortality, I've prognosticated a bit on where the current technology can put us with regard to rejuvenation. In Love Post Supermortality I described a time where humans will be able to pay for and receive "intra genetic revigoration" that allows them to essentially age in reverse as their cellular repair mechanisms are restored system wide over a period of weeks or months. This morning I was thinking about what happens when this type of treatment is widely available. What will be the average age to which people revert themselves if it is possible to chose an age? Will all chose to be as young as possible? I propose that the age people will revert to the most can be inferred by taking a sufficient poll today of what age a person would chose to be reverted to if given the choice after they've become an adult. So the poll would include people aged from 25 and greater, and pose the question: "If you could be reverted ...

A friend posted this article responding to an article in the Washington Post making a case for stimulus' effectiveness when applied during times of economic malaise in the US. I often see arguments along the lines of those indicated and wanted to put down a formal rebuttal of those points here: A short bit on each of his objections : 1) On overstating degree of unanimity, this is an extremely subjective statement. He then goes on to point out a small sample of alternative reads from economists on the effectiveness of stimulus which only stand out because they are alternative reads. The consensus is that stimulus properly aimed and timed, consistently works. If there are opposing views on that statement they are in the minority...and stating that existence means that economists are not unanimous in their agreement as to the effectiveness of stimulus in general...is obvious and not really relevant. 2) On ignoring public choice, he has three issues: a) timing -- Th...