As I've laid out before, the basics of making an AI that can do all the basic functions of a true mind requires us to understand how that mind works.I laid out the basic mechanisms of sensation, perception, and conception as the three integrals of said AI. Now I need to explain the part of conception in detail.

This part has been the hardest for me to break down compared to the other two, because there are few, if any, analogs for conception in the computing world, even in the theories of hypercomputation and non-Turing computation there are no key methods to represent the process. So, I've had to puzzle over this part for better on two years by myself as I study for my degree. What I found is that certain kinds of logic seem to represent the process of conception in small, refined parts. Natural logic gives us a general form for which we make our inferences, like Modus Ponens, which is found to be the most intuitive form of logic that any person can learn to utilize. Predicate Logic, or Quantifier based logic is another example of how we group sets of logic based on whether a variable quantity can be fulfilled, even though it is simply an addition to Natural logic, it can be counter intuitive at times unless a person is taught what the symbols for the quantifiers mean and what they do to a given 'formula' in it. And there are many other kinds of logic, which I'm still studying that also seem to fill the gaps in describing conception of people [Intuitive logic is one kind that I find interesting, but I need more time to consider it.]. Ultimately, all these kinds of logic have an underlying function of conception which binds them together to allow me to assume that each kind describes a part of human conception.

I started using Natural logic as the basis for my work, but I found I needed to add my own form of quantifiers like those found in Predicate Logic, but not based entirely on them. First, lets look at a classic Natural logic form, Modus Ponens.

P -> Q
P
-
.: Q

What is going on here is that the first part is the declaration that one thing implies another. And which the primary thing (P) is confirmed then it follows that the secondary is confirmed too (Q). This form works well when just discussing this in the form of a single instance like an individual event, or a single instance correlation between two phenomena and the like. It doesn't work well when describing how it works all on its own or over all possibilities across all phenomena of all times of all spaces. Essentially, it's a reduced form for what I call, 'abstracta.' Abstracta is as the name implies, an collection of abstractions, but specifically they are 'objects' from which an individual mind can operate upon to parse any data that is found. So, if you had a random set of data that seemingly had no format, it is conceivable that with abstracta you could find correlations. Understand that I stated correlations, because abstracta do not confirm correlations as causations, that takes a series of assumptions which some abstracta can be based, but cannot validate in themselves explicitly. More so, an individual member of abstracta can be wrong if they are found to lead to contradictions in their 'positive' [verifying] forms, especially if given axioms or premises for a given member of abstracta leads to the specific state of contradiction. Abstracta in this context are a set of unparticulars, or knowledge that is not specified to any given entity or entities.

With that in mind, let me present how I would show Modus Ponens via an abstractum [singular form of abstracta].

P[i] then Q[i] only if P[xi] = Q[xi], but not excluding where P[xi] =/= Q[xi] when ~P[i].
P[xi]
-
:. Q[i]

Now, this borrows from Predicate Logic in the quantification modifiers where the brackets contain the letters i and x to represent specific quantities. 'I' represents a specific set of entities that can be applied to P and Q on the whole, and 'X' represents a given entity of that set. In this case, when I stated that P[xi] = Q[xi], I am stating that if two given functions correlate, then at least one of the given entities of the application set make both functions equal in quantity, but with a catch. The catch is that there can be a case where P[xi] does not equal Q[xi], if the function of P is found to be false or negated for all the set as this prevents the logical fallacy known as Denial of the Antecedent (If P then Q, ~P, therefore ~Q). In this 'toy version' of my system, the abstractum is stating that if any given implication correlation there must be at least one entity where it makes both functions equal, when the primary function is not denied/negated for it to be true. Essentially, this is what I believe makes Modus Ponens true, in that each implication requires both propositions to be shared between the same set of applicable entities or a particular entity. An example of this would be, "If it rains, then the street will get wet." What is shared between both the proposition of rain and the street getting wet is that water or some fluid is required for this to be true, but it does not imply that if does not rain that the streets can never get wet. Wetness can occur if someone spills their coffee on the street. Or if an ice truck wrecks and the ice is spilled all over the street. Or if someone runs their sprinkler and the water overflows onto the street. It just declares that for it to be true in the instance between rain and the street getting wet, both must be equal for both to correlate. What this proves is that particular instances of propositions can be isolated for their given applicable entities, but the whole form of the proposition cannot be isolated from all possible entities. And that is where my form of the Modus Ponens abstractum operates. It gives an unparticular account of a correlation in which can be applied to an 'instanced' form of itself to where it can validate or invalidate a given 'instanced' proposition. What this allows for in AI of any kind, Turing or Non, is the ability to operate on a very broad set of parameters that fit the form of the abstracta. And it implies that given sets of knowledge start at a state that is instanced, or particular, from which unparticular, uninstanced, sets of knowledge are found. So, a Turing based AI would have to have more essential or basic abstracta to develop abstractum like the Modus Ponens abstractum. This is where I find that Turing based AI cannot operate, in that there is no single instance where such an AI can find a state to halt, 'dump delta', and then use what was found to be true from its observations on other observations that are unlike said observation in particulars of the entities. A Non-Turing AI can due to the fact that it operates from working on particulars to find unparticulars [or abstracta] in its operation by comparison. In short, a Non-Turing AI has to be 'born smart' or 'born curious' to operate.

Ultimately, this is just a work in progress, which I'm still revising and researching to find if there are better methods to describe this action better. And like the other thread, any criticism, suggestions, hints, links, and etc are very much welcomed.

My soul is filled with...: accomplished

I've been hinting about this for about a year, so I thought I lay my cards on the table and attempt to explain as to what I've been working on.

For years, computer scientists and cognitivist orientated psychologists [and neurologists] have been trying to create an artificially intelligent agent. From the functionalist [walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...] position to the emergent position in the 'AI' community have all been attempted with little or success. No matter how refined such theories have become, none have produced an AI analogous to the intelligence level of even some small animals [dogs and such]. Yet, the pursuit for the 'Holy Grail' of AI still continues for the simple fact that the reward still outweighs any potential risk or pitfall. Ultimately, the idea of having a conscious entity not dependent on limiting biological substrates is more than tantalizing to any businessman looking for a tireless mind able to work on problems, manage physical systems, and create new kinds of technologies to ignore. So, money pours down on such projects, even for just a glimmer of intelligent operation in machines.

My work focuses on what I see is the self-limiting factor in all the theories of AI. That factor happens to be the computers themselves. No matter how fast the processors get, no matter how many logic gates we cram into the recesses of silicon chips computers cannot act as independent or self-made agents. The reason is quite obvious if you have a cursory experience in programming in any modern machine language (C, C++, and etc), that is no matter how absurd your series of commands might be to you and other rational beings the computer will always execute them without question of consequence or implication. One common logical error in programming is divide by zero. It often leads to software crashing, databases becoming irreparably corrupted, and lots of headaches for developers debugging said software. Yet it seems clear that such software should not even run on computers if they are inherently 'smart.' The reality is that processors do not have the inherent capacity to develop logic implications as humans [and possibly other species] can. What is the secret behind logical assessment? Is it an intuition? Is it that logic has irreducible components that are analogical to physical systems? Such questions arise because these are the same questions that many philosophers ask when considering the problem of AI.

My solution tends to seem backward to some because it implies that computers are, in themselves, backward. What I propose is to suspend what preconceptions you come to this exposition with and consider the following. Imagine, if you will, how mental operations might occur. There are certain steps that arise through the jungle of the human brain and mind. Such steps are invariant no matter how many times a person goes through them, or how many times a person ceases to follow them for the simple fact that these steps are necessary to lead to the solution that allows for logical assessment.

The first step starts with our senses. Why the senses, you may ask? Simply put, all animals depend on them to operate, so our patterns of thought are geared toward them and not toward something purely internal [or purely external]. The fact that we learn from what we observe is integral to reproducing how we human animals think. From the senses we accrue the next step: perception. No matter what you may think about the idea of perception it's not what you think, it's what you act upon. It's all the jumbled sensory 'messages' that are ordered by your nervous system so your brain can actually operate on them to make conclusions. Essentially, your perception is your VR/Sense-o-Rama. It's the 'map' of the world you use to make conclusions about the world around yourself. Without it, you can't make any conclusions about the world. Nor could you say there was/is a world around you. The fact that perception, like your senses, is independent of your thought makes this very easy to represent in other physical systems. In fact, everything from operating systems to BIOS control chips are analogically similar to perception [the nervous system] in that both OSes and BIOS control chips order the state of computers for them to operate properly. So too does your perception order your senses for you to operate properly.

The third step is the one where things become complicated. That step is mental conception. This step can be broken into a number of other steps; measurement, isolation, and integration. Measurement is obvious enough to assume because everything we do with regard to our mental states is a form of measurement. We measure the quantity of objects, and we measure their quality. Our measurements allow us to order what we think into sets that are hierarchal within themselves and in relation to other such sets. Isolation may seem redundant, but in fact it's not. Isolation is not measurement for the simple fact that a person can still measure an entity without isolating from others. In fact, one has to measure an entity against another entity [mental or material] for one to know what one is measuring. Isolation, on the other hand, requires you to exclude all other entities from it. Isolation allows one to accrue all the data required to represent the entity being isolated in one's mental states as a concept. In short, isolation allows you make a map or copy of the entity you perceive.

Integration is important as it is the step in mental conception that allows you to store what you perceive, measure, and isolate in your memory. Integration is an 'emergent' step in relation to measurement and isolation in that both measurement and isolation allows one to easily integrate what one perceives into a concept for memory. Yet, integration is not automatic, it requires something extra: free will. Free will is important here because if we automatically integrated every thing we perceived, measured, and isolated, then what would become of our capacity to remember things? Clearly humans don't literally integrate everything perceived just by cursory examination of one's daily routine. At work, we don't remember every conversation held. At home we don't remember every little quip or joke on a sitcom we watched. And in our sleep, we don't remember every dream as if it were an automatic procedure. Ultimately, our free will is that little trick that allows us to ignore other entities in perception and to focus on the ones we wish to integrate. In short, free will is our halting command. In this context, computers do not have an internal halting command of their own self-control. Such halting commands or statements have to be hardwired or setup as logic loops that will be tested in which one case of said loops will yield a FALSE [or 0 bit] state, thus allowing the computer to continue operation with the rest of its programming.

With this basic blueprint of how the human animal thinks, it may be possible to recreate these steps within a non-Turing computer. Why did I choose the non-Turing paradigm? Simply put, it is the best possible candidate for success. Non-Turing, or hypercomputation, is a branch of computer science that examines physical systems to understand why they operate. Entire sections of Chaos Theory, neurology, and psychology all are devoted to this venture. One particular mathematician, Kurt Godel, hit upon a possible means to discover the methods required to make artificial intelligence possible. Godel observed that certain kinds of logical propositions and systems lead to absurdities [infinities] when they are forced to self-reference. One example of this would be recursive functions in ANSI C. When a recursive function in ANSI C is given no test condition [logical loop] it will operate forever, referencing itself without end. Essentially, such a function is left to roam in a hall of mirrors of its own nature. So, the test condition is a reference made outside of the recursive program. Godel would call a recursive function with a test condition an open system. Certain logical systems mirror this across many kinds of situations [Catalog Paradox is a good example if you wish to search for it at Wolfram's website], with no end in their operation due to self-reference. The solution, as it was for recursive functions, is to reference another system outside of the logical system itself. Basically, certain kinds of systems must operate as if it is not 'alone' or self-contained. Computers, specifically our current paradigm of the Turing Complete kind, are unable to operate like this on their own, they must be given test conditions to ensure they work properly. And in many cases such test conditions require human intervention to continue [Installation software is a great example of this as it queries the user for the next step in its procedures]. Free will in this context may be that test condition in mental conception that allows humans to operate with sufficient capacity as to be rational agents all on their own. Yet how we do quantify the nature of free will? I would consider this question to be the most important problem of this proposition only because I have yet to find anyone to sufficiently solve it [Not even myself]. The steps of mental conception as they stand [sensation, perception, and mental conception (measurement, isolation, and integration)] will be easy to implement in part, excluding integration [and free will] from the current set of steps. Yet, when only implemented in part, we do not get the desired result, but we do get other kinds of results such as semi-autonomous robots like the kind used by NASA on Mars, or 'intelligent' agents as they are used in certain hospitals to double check a doctor's diagnosis. Such 'intelligent' agents are only as good as the information we give them, so their intelligence is the result of ours. Essentially, they are condensations of human cognition into a more utility driven form.


And with all that being said, I think I'll end this post by stating feel free to reply with questions, criticisms, and what not.

My soul is filled with...: contemplative

http://www.thesimpsons.com/

http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/thesimpsonsmovie/

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!! *does the ultimate dance routine of happiness*

-- Bridget

My soul is filled with...: hopeful

For about six years now since the turn of the millennium, we've seen the consequences of statism in our world. War, disease, famine, and, ultimately, death either by design or by incompetence of the governments that rule our world. And with each consequence we see our families, our friends, and our fellow human beings fall deeper into the belief that if the world, under the auspices of a government or a governmental agency, it will get better, despite the contrary facts. From planned economies to planned health care systems, we're seeing our world being turned into one massive, horribly managed system to which our children and their children will have to bare the brunt of all the consequences therein. The more we talk it seems the more this world is taken from us and our fellow human beings by force and by fraud. Leaving us with little or nothing to utilize for our own individual causes of liberty. Whether it's Ben Tucker spinning yarns of common ownership or whether it's Objectivists talking about taking back our minds from those who are the looters of this world, none of these things will be possible in a world where our very lives are owned by those who can and will extinguish them. None of them will ever be done, or attempted, unless we all decide to make the most critical choice of all: to become a hero in our own way.

What do I mean by becoming a hero? I was thinking about this while I was watching the Heroes TV series and considered that the element that makes one a hero is not super powers like the TV series seems to imply, but rather it's the mind and the values that the mind accrues to which actions results from the mind that accrues the right values. In short, it starts with you, apart from any given ability, ordinary or extraordinary. It means taking what you know to be right and doing it, even if others don't accept it. It means accepting that the world will not and cannot understand that must be done. This does not imply in itself that one ought to exact retribution or posse-style 'law', rather it implies that there are certain actions that must be done to see the next day through for ourselves and for that which we value most. It also does not imply that violence is the only option to gaining the chance to achieve what one values most. It does imply that the majority of people, and the world, will hate you for what you will do because the world as it is today does not have room for concepts of good and evil.

In this context, liberty is not about greys, but about what is right and wrong, and that for what we choose, no matter how different it may seem to each other, it is indeed the right thing that we choose for ourselves, individually. For the freedom each and every one of us chooses is not a freedom to cause harm to the lives of others, but rather the freedom to be apart from others and to be free to come together as we see as necessary. That kind of freedom is always right in every season and every portal to every door that has been and will be. It is the freedom that gave us language, art, philosophy, and science. It is this freedom that made our streets shine with electric lights, and it made the generators that power them. It is this freedom alone that we must defend, that we must be heroes to protect it at all costs.

The world today is full of so many greys that even the Sun and the Moon themselves are grey. And in this greyness, the world cannot see the truth of things, nor can most of its inhabitants. It takes a strong heart to be a hero, considering that if you do fail, you probably will lose everything you value, but how is that different from any other situation or day? I say it is not at all different, but it's a choice left up to you. Will you be a hero and fight for what is right? Or get lost in the grey of the world?

Tags: liberty philosophy heroes
My soul is filled with...: contemplative

One thing I hate about university is how often teachers seem to coordinate their tests to about the same time, in my case it's Friday that's the usual test ass slammer for me. Luckily, I was more prepared this time around, so I doubt I'll have a poor grade on either test, especially the statistics one.

Lately, I've been losing more weight, I'm finally getting down to about 269 from my average of 275 for the last month and a half. It's been a hard time just sticking to a regular eating pattern so not to disrupt my weight loss or appetite [so not to gorge]. Ultimately, I feel better over all since I can actually move around more so than I did when I was about 296 pounds. :-P

In other news, I've decided to reopen my journal to public viewing with the exception of past entries, those shall remain friends only. I plan to tie this journal to my old defunct podcast, so I can feed the files here and on a feedburner link too. I think I'll cover something less brainy, but not completely pointless this time around. I guess I feel a need to express myself more so in light of how many collectivistic folks there are among my fellow "trans-kind." I think the youngsters need to hear a voice not tainted by social convention and Marxist drivel [Rightist or Leftist stylings].

-- Bridget

Tags: blah, boredom, exhaustion
My soul is filled with...: exhausted

If you want to be added to my friends list, please communicate your wish to do so here. :)

-- Bridget