We’ve included more than one in the message thread, and so thus labelled, (fig. 1).
We’ve included more than one in the message thread, and so thus labelled, (fig. 1).
Sorry, I am asking where that model came from and the thought processes behind it. I assume you didn’t randomly write three words on the sides of a triangle, and that it is based on some theory.
An even better question; Paul; thanks again!
We employed a creative method in order to inform our understanding of a force with which to be reckoned and began with a subjective description of the universe in which we found ourselves.
We assumed free will and a distinction to be drawn, and so depicted choice as two diverging lines stemming from a common origin, distinguished arbitrarily by color.
This is part of my question, yes. I have picked up that you are using the triangle to represent conflicting decisions. However, I think the more important part of my question is, besides the fact that you have depicted a triangle, why you have chosen to label that triangle’s sides as “axon”, “dendrite”, and “synaptic gap”. And secondly, why does this arrangement imply a form of connection between dendrite and axon other than the synaptic gap?
Is there more to this than merely placing three random words on a triangle and talking about what the vertices might represent? Is there some higher reasoning for selecting the three labels in the first place? For example, I assume the process wouldn’t be used to imply the existence of a connection between an arm and a hand which does not include a wrist:
Hopefully I am not insulting your intelligence by this question. I really do not yet understand the concept you are presenting, so hopefully this will demonstrate where the communication is failing. Is there more to this than just a drawing exercise that can be used to think about the relationship between three concepts from a different perspective?
To answer the question of thoughts on design; in the case of (Fig.1), we provided an example of a specific application intended to serve as a suitable point of reference from which another so inclined may find correspondence.
We love your arm, hand, wrist example otherwise such a thing might never have occurred and insult or not, we may be forever grateful. <3
You’re hitting the important points in terms of relationship, three, concept and perspective, and while there may be no shortage of ways with which to describe how a general model might be viewed or applied, we’re hoping to propose to the group an important question which we hope may shed light on the matter of recognition from which the tetrahedral net may come into play and in so doing may demonstrate how one might employ the design in such a manner as you so well described.
(On such a matter as proposing a question of recognition, we’ll be asking if we can ask the question but currently unsure where to ask and therefore unsure where to ask where; giggles.)
Since you have thus implied the question of where, and there no longer being a need to ask it, I will suggest the Community Lounge.
(To be fair to Paul’s point of hanging random terms on a framework; it may well be incorrect to assume such a connection in terms of the brain but for example quite safe in terms of body and nervous system. Again we’re attempting an example of how to use the model in a discipline far beyond our general knowledge set and so are reliant on those better qualified to correctly implement according to their preference.)
Ah, I see. Could you perhaps demonstrate in detail how you have used the model to solve another problem? I am still unclear on the details of your model, so I think such an exercise would be helpful (for me at least)
Unless instructed otherwise; we’re attempting such an experiment pertaining to recognition in the Community Lounge as suggested, which in all likelihood may only produce what may be an invaluable exercise where such details as you describe may be shown, however we’ve been pleasantly surprised by positive results on a number of occasions and look forward regardless.
(we’re currently proofing the article in question)
Perhaps any demonstration of a resolution or discovery may always remain open to debate, but through an iterative process of trial and error some early successes were expanded upon which appeared remarkably effective in terms of both quality and quantity in the form of a considerable catalogue of original material covering a broad range of topics, some of which we share through a network of Facebook pages intended to engage a general audience in a self-directed, educational experience of discovery, or as one may prefer and depending on which page they may be visiting; an associated network of informative Facebook pages designed to entertain an audience in an engaging experience of educational self-discovery.
While entertaining ourselves with such a prospect, we’ve been anticipating what may be about to unfold and might be inclined to revelry, but as one may find themselves a happy, naked lunatic chasing butterflies in winter, they may be unable to speak in terms of what another finds satisfying and so look to those more suitable to the task at hand.
Thank you once again for providing such a great example and in this case a model of investigative inquiry. <3
If such a thing as quantity may be of greater consideration than quality, perhaps favour may be shown for a thousand tonnes of useless over a fractional gram of useful; but as creative difference may suggest, there may be no accounting for preference and if so, one may speak only of their own and through reason be prepared to defend it, and so to that end we offer the following for your consideration:
There may be no single answer to a question of how many triangles there are in the figure, but if an account of the number of line segments, vertices and colours may be definitive, then the matter may have more to do with the quality of the question or more accurately stated; a question of the quality of the question being asked.
I see. So to rephrase this in my own words (to make sure I understand): If one were to rephrase the question from “how many triangles” to “how many line segments and vertices”, they would go from asking a subjective question to asking an objective one.
Could you provide an example where you have used this technique to solve a problem or provide a more objective view into a specific domain?
More or less the idea Paul; good example!
The figure may also demonstrate the notion of emergence and an important distinction between quality and quantity insofar as quantity may be meaningless without quality and in terms of quantitative analysis being dependent on the quality of the things being measured.
If we haven’t already, there may be a good chance of providing such an example in the future and although such validation be never be definitive; the more examples we provide going forward, more crickets than critics seem to appear and so once again we are grateful for your time, effort and consideration.
Not so much a problem, nor proof nor even evidence, but a recent case where a popular content creator liked one of our tweets.
Good show, @Falco.
“Abstract Our findings suggest that global relational codes may be used to organize non-spatial conceptual representations and that these codes may have hexagonal grid-like pattern when conceptual knowledge is laid out in two continuous dimensions.”
We skimmed one of the abstracts (1.) Falco offered in a recent post and suspect such grid pattern may be similar to that of “rhombille tiling.
Figure 3 depicts how we moved from triangle to hexagon and finally to rhomboid. Of particular interest may be the three elements in the final assembly (fig. 3i) having emerged originally, remain open and may be open to discussion, but we think they may be depicting where and how the experience of consciousness comes about and may correspond to the three domains depicted by Figure 4 in the above post.
The dotted lines in Figure 5a may be depicting subjective experience, which when it occurs completes the “metacube” (fig. 5b) and the snowflake (fig. 5c). In Numenta’s case, the subjective experience in question may be that of recognition and when it occurs, we experience it such as an Epiphany or when something “rings true” and so on.
If the thicker line elements may depict that of the physical and the thinner line elements that of “organized non-spatial conceptual representations” (previously stated as metaphysical), then a distinction may be drawn among the latter in terms of between objective such as sensory input for example (a.) and subjective (b.) such as internal dialogue, where the subjective experience may be depicted by the thin, dotted lines and combined may depict the experience of recognition (c.).
I locked this post because it is no longer related to biologically inspired intelligence. In fact it seems to have moved into the realm of metaphysics. You’ll find many places on the internet to discuss topics like this, but not here.
Please see this post for more guidance: Read this first