More on "Quad Nets" (new brain/mind theory)

In September, 2006, I described my “new brain/mind theory” here and received some challenging criticism from Eric Thomson and Mike S. (see below). To meet these challenges, I prepared a reduced model discussed in a web page linked to a paper in .pdf form. Since my approach is based on little-known thermodynamics, I have also written about mechanical metaphors that may be helpful in explaining my ideas.

“Timing devices” in the new paper are like RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computers) in comparison to Quad Nets that are like CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computers). “Quad Nets” is based on “critical point thermodynamics” and I am confident that they are new. However, “timing devices” may have been explored by others and I will especially welcome any pointers to existing literature.

Comments and suggestions are always welcome, I am found at:
rlk “at”
Bob Kovsky

Eric Thomson wrote several posts that included the following:

It would really help if you dissected an individual ‘tial’ mathematically. That is, what rules do they follow? What are the rules for how they interact with one another? Is there an example of a computation that they can perform? E.g., xor.

Bob: without an equation to describe how an individual element works, it’s impossible for me to say anything more. Even if you need six to get a cycle, it would be very helpful to know what is cycling, what the rules governing the individual elements of the cycle. It is usually pedagogically most useful to start simple, with equations that govern how an individual element (whether it be neuron, capacitor, etc) works, and then build up slowly to more interesting behavior.

Eric noted comparisons to:
…cellular automata, but the rules governing the behavior of individual cells is quite explicable. My main point is, that as a sociological fact, few people will read or understand your theory unless you take what you call the ‘atomic-molecular’ approach.

also it would be good to fill out in more detail the input-output transform being implemented by an individual element: a drawing that specifies the inputs, outputs, and the transform between the two.

…This should all be quantifiable. The controls (with parameters), the inputs, and the output (even if it is just a periodic real function). If it is open-ended, give a case with a specific set of inputs.

Mike S. wrote:
Here’s my advice, from 20 years in the industry.
1. Define what each unit does.
2. Describe how the units interact.
3. Show that the interaction causes the units to generate a representation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s