I wonder if this is the right blog to post this to, I may cross-post an edited version to the other. I ran into an associate on the way to class, I had a few minutes and he was headed out and we demonstrated the resonance chamber effect.
You mean echo chamber right?
No, I mean resonance chamber effect.
In an echo chamber, there is only a loss of information, nothing new is gained. Certain thoughts may eventually survive to become dominant, but they are merely abstractions of something that originally existed, often times twisted, but again, nothing really new. If you want to see this effect, just go get a Facebook account. You will see it happen in real-time as people only exist in their echo chambers and reinforce thoughts, again until only a single one survives.
That is not what happened today.
creativity can happen in many ways. Some are better than others, some worse. but in many ways. I for example am a generalist. My ‘creativity’ is taking a principle from a seemingly unrelated area and applying it to the model of another system. Yes, that is right, I am basically a novel patent thief. You come up with something genuinely new, I will apply it to something you never intended. Now I am not going to try and actually patent anything, nor am I really a thief, what I am saying is that I am a generalist. I work with models, and very abstract ones at that.
The point is, that I am part of a resonance chamber pair. Put me in a room with people of genuine knowledge, I will abstract their information combine it and something wonderful happens. Rather than being everything down to the lowest common denominator. everything expands as the common denominators fill in spots of missing information in the other models, fleshing them out and tuning them.
There is a thought the there is nothing new under the sun. For humanity, this is mostly true. occasionally someone will get a real genius of an insight and change everything. Let me be clear now though, I am not that person.
I have seen two kinds of geniuses in my lifetime.
The first is the novel thinker. Someone who honestly has a new idea, something so different that it really is novel. These kinds of people are never understood by the masses, it takes a genius of the second type to bring out the real work. What is the 2nd type? The Genius who can relate to people. He acts as an interface between the novel genius and the higher levels of society, and occasionally society in general. These people are amazing. They can take a really new concept, and explain it in such a way that others can understand it and say, gee why did I not thing of that it is so simple.
Yeah, I am neither of those.
There is a genius of the 3rd type. These are the Edison type of genius. Try everything and keep trying until something happens to work. They are geniuses because they keep trying and trying and trying.
I am not one of those either.
Dear non-existent reader, I simply am not what anyone who understands genius would call a genius. If you do manage to find a definition of a genius I fit. I am simply going to tell you that either: 1) you are wrong, or 2) it is not genius.
Real genius takes hard work. It takes laser like focus to birth a new idea, I have ADD.
No I am the annoying guy in the corner always analyzing and abstracting and generalizing. My mind can dart from place to place following a path that makes a rabbit warren in a briar patch look amazingly organized. Which BTW is one of the reasons my writing style is as it is. I tend to write stream of consciousness, why, because once I have a thought, I am likely to never have that exact same thought again.
But back to my encounter with a fellow student. In just a few minutes we went down a path that might have taken others months or years to do.
Talking about research projects, we just clicked and were firing on all cylinders. Specifically we were talking about the ability, eventually to map[ all the neurons and their processes onto a new neural net and build a consciousness. What was interesting to me was not only how we got there, but the result of the thought line was that you need more than a snapshot. The individual neuron is a complex system in and of itself. A model of chaos theory in many ways. To actually understand what is happening in a single neuron, you must have mathematically, an equation for every reaction, and know the timing and direction of each reaction. Why? Because every individual neuron is constantly not just sending a signal, but also being modified by that same signal. Every signal that passes through a neuron is affected by every signal that has passed through it before. Thus to model a single neuron, you must know not only what each reaction is, what direction the reaction is travelling in, its magnitude, its velocity and what the limits are of the signal and the resulting changes on the system Oh and the boundaries high and low as well. Plus it would be nice to have an equation that shows how every change that occurs is in fact mapped back onto the signal transport of that same neuron. All that for a signal neuron. Now the nice thing is if you could get that all abstracted you could build a model neuron, and then replicate that neuron and build a neural net. Of course the physical characteristics of each neuron are going to be different, so no two will have the same signal modification, but you can come close. Oh and of course since it is a bio-machine, it runs with genetic programming. And you know that everyone has 3 genetic codes unless they are female and then they have 4 right? DNA, Mito, Epigenetic and Bar body activation de-activation.