Registered: Apr 2009
Posts: 3

Dear Sir:

“A New Kind of Science” discerns between 4 types of complexity origination, i.e. repetition, nesting, randomness, and
localization. This 4-fold structure appears to be a special case of the general 4-fold structure that permeates matter, life, and mind.

My field is to study the conditions of the possibility of artificial human cognition, vulgo of building a conscious computer. The structure mentioned I first outlined to students of theoretical chemistry in 1997, having extracted it from studies in comparative international law, and the philosophy of law. (Law is artificial human cognition in its proto-phase, before computers.)

In other words, that structure, and, more generally, the dialectic partition of the world (= matter, life, mind) into a 5-fold, and into a 7-fold structure has long been known. Therefore, I have long come to the conclusion that the question why this structural knowledge has not been implemented technologically to create new matter, life, and mind, is the really crucial question.

The crucial question is not: “What is consciousness?” - this question has been answered, and in a computerizable manner so, 30 years ago - but it is: “Why hasn’t it been emulated yet?”

Scholars have continued for millennia to find, and outline, those structures, as well as physicists and theoretical chemists must have found them serendipitily in the course of their work, and sure have. This makes the question more poignant even. One possible answer might be given by saying that those structures had in deed been realized, but, alas, the thing just hadn’t worked due to a lack of insight into the structure of causality. As if structural validity would not imply causality. This is so, but yet I’ve never heard that apology, though. - Causality has been explained by me in a manner for causation to be implementable into a computer program - drawing from quantum mechanics (Zeh) as well as historical (Arendt) literature! In other words, this, too, has been known, I certainly did not invent anything myself, and yet the question prevails.

Well, maybe the new search engine that Wolframscience announced to be launched soon will realize artificial human cognition, and will finally turn the internet a global brain. In this case, this poster is obsolete, right now
already. If not, if time permits I should be happy to receive comments as to what is still amiss.

Sincerely,
Walter Lynkeus

info@cahi.de

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 179

>My field is to study the conditions of the possibility of artificial human cognition, vulgo of building a conscious computer.

That's simple. (Though I'm probably still 5 years out.)

The reason most people get worked up about consciousness is that they have a simple misconception about.

They think human beings possess consciousness.

Actually, you have to look at it like this:

We are aware of the Universe. We are part of the Universe.

The Universe is aware of itself through us.

Consciousness is when the Universe is aware of itself.

So, to model this, you simple make a computer program that is complex enough to measure itself.

It's basic constituents form compounds with enough complexity to form sense organs and a brain, and then the measurements are encoded within the neural network.

At this point, we can refer to Newton's definition of space:

"Relative space is a sensible measurement of the absolute spaces."

Then we will finally have emulated consciousness, because we will have emulated both absolute space and relative space, which means the mind is of course in the middle.

Even though Newton (and Leibniz) gave us clear instructions on how emulate the mind, we haven't been able to do it because there are so many popular myths about the mind.

There is an elite understanding and a common understanding.

It seems very very few since Newton could conceive the Universe as he did, with the measuring mind resting between absolute reality and relative reality.

__________________
Information Science, Neuroscience, Quantum Mechanics, and Leibniz
http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2009
Posts: 3

The comment of Mike Helland
shows once again that American mentality is akin to pre-conscious Iliadic mentality. Pre-conscious peoples cannot handle objects that are devoid of touchable surfaces. The first, and easiest to build, conscious computer may feature this Iliadic or American mentality. Structure it will simulate by virtual surfaces, lacking causality. It will know everything, but will be unable to reason. This is the next step from the present status of the internet. It would be the lowest level of the global brain. Technology is recapitulistic.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2004
Posts: 27

Any response to anything in the environment that serves the purpose of perpetuating a thing would be purposeful intelligence. An amoeba has purposeful intelligence.

Everything we build, including our computers, has been created to serve our purposes, not its purposes.

If we build things with self-directing mechanisms that perpetuate the thing, we'll get closer . . . but would we actually want to do that?

I suppose that we might want a domesticated genius in every garage, but could we keep it there?

What is the simplest structure that we could create that would take on the task of perpetuating itself? What are the minimal material and logical requirements for creating a structure that seeks and is able to perpetuate itself?

I can imagine a simple program that randomly creates a self-perpetuating structure that survives and evolves as it begins to evolve into a structure that discriminates between advantageous and deleterious conditions for its self-perpetuation. But, to evolve, other possible combinations of self-perpetuation would have to be available randomly among the materials and logic available.

Are we smart enough to capture all the logics available? Can we provide all the possible but disorganized materials for evolution?

Somehow, I think that the geneticists will play with what's already here to create artificial intelligence long before we can manufacture it. The location in an insect's brain of its will to live might be isolated and used as a core circuit to give a computer the will to live and to think and to learn.

Very Respectfully,
Ray Donald Pratt

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2009
Posts: 3

Ray Donald Pratt defines intelligence as the ability of a system to maintain itself against an environment. This definition is wrong. Systems are maintained by their environment, not against it, or, rather, by a non-immanent author, who maintains both. Non-immanent here means that the author is not a part of either one. The Scholars called this mechanism concurrence. Concurrence is the intelligence of the author. Some call the author universal intelligence which is at the same level as calling the top quark love. - Intelligence is the ability to adopt a perspective view of oneself.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged