This collection of books is a small, but growing example of the millions of books, journals, periodicals, and academic papers we are currently tracking and indexing. We are updating this library constantly. Please return often and review this library as it evolves.
This library is the first step on our way to making Mathesis Universalis (the long-sought search for a unifying principle in all that we know and experience) a reality. Soon our knowledge representations, in their many forms, will be accessible from the pop-up dialogues which appear when you click/tap on a book’s entry in the overview you see. Other types of knowledge sources; such as social media activity, websites, E-Mails, audio, video,… are also going to be included in our tracking and indexing system.
I, Carey G. Butler, have been working on this idea since 1989 during my study of Foundational Mathematics and Complex Analysis. I then moved to Germany in 1990 to continue my study (this time in the original German language) of many German mathematicians and philosophers such as Carl Friedrich Gauss, Bernhard Riemann, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz,… During that first year I began to formalise the idea as I began to learn the German language more intensively.
The journey has been a long one and was finally conceptually refined in March of 2009. The journey has taken many, many turns in the years since. I have made several key discoveries in mathematics, philosophy, and linguistics along the way which I, due to my concerns about priority, have not yet published. A few of these discoveries are documented elsewhere though, but I have been very careful to withhold many aspects of their details until I was able to find and/or adapt current technologies to bring them to a useful expression and application in their fullness. I was confronted with many obstacles and challenges, but I never gave up. For more information about my plans, please visit our website at Mathesis Universalis in English or Mathesis Universalis auf Deutsch.
As it stands, we could have created this library application a year ago. It is, in itself, nothing very special for programmers who know how to build applications like it. However, as we developed and tested the predecessor to this application, it soon became very clear that the sheer volume of data being manipulated was creating increasing demands on the conventional technology we were using at the time. Our concerns about processing time, network speed, and infrastructural demands forced us to step back and create a better foundation which could be scaled to any degree. We have spent the last 8 months (August 2021 – April 2022) building a ‘symphony’ of cloud applications and an infrastructure which is now fast, reliable, and scalable.
Towards that aim, this library represents the ‘orchestration’ of a collection of cloud apps we created or have forked and modified for our purposes that is distributed over several servers. Its backend is primarily driven by a distributed Couchbase database to store and to manipulate the massive amount of data. Also other kinds of databases are implemented for temporary storage or for the frontend’s presentation and housekeeping.
We are currently developing a Progressive Web App which will use this library as one of its sources to present our knowledge representation.
Finally, after 13 years of investment of all kinds and, on the 8th birthday of one of my most important discoveries (‘We Have a Heartbeat‘),…
Often they do it, because those who destroy others’ lives are themselves miserable or have destroyed their own lives.
Another reason is to advance objectives that are held by the person or held by the people the person works for. Alphabet agencies like CIA, NSA, NSC, BND, MOSSAD, UNO,… there are even documented examples of Microsoft, Apple, Google, Twitter, and Facebook having exhibited this behaviour.
They usually harbour some form of disdain for others or humanity as a whole. Or they are incapable of human properties like empathy (pathology of some kind).
Humanity is comprised of many spectra; those of ideologies, values, goals, methods, knowledge, power,… These spectra, when placed upon their side like a sine wave (which is actually a spiral), look like Bell curves of some type. There are many variants of these curves.
Note how each Bell curve exhibits specific properties. Among those properties are the distribution of an inherent ‘population’. The population of the curve could be anything, not just people. They also have outliers. Those of the population which exist on the extreme left or right of the curve.
If we had a particular set of properties to examine, we may place the distribution of this property into one or more of these curves. Let’s take banksters, who can be, and usually are very destructive.
We would have at least 5 curves to describe their population.
Intelligence: where they usually (always exceptions to outliers) occupy the upper portion of the curve (where it gets real small).
Empathy: where they usually occupy the extreme lower part of the spectrum.
Control fetish: where they are usually found in the middle of the spectrum.
Hoarding: again in the centre.
You could continue in this vein to describe them so uniquely, that even language can’t keep up with its ‘granularity’ (increasing specificity). Things like available resources, socialising debt, privatising profit, corruption, warmongering, demographic changes, jail time, manipulative tendency, fear,…
That is where language is then transformed into knowledge.
As you see, people who destroy other’s lives can easily be found using this method.
#10 All holons have at least six fundamental capacities. (Revised)
#10 – All Holons have at least four fundamental capacities. (Potential) *** REVISION *** #10 – All Holons have at least six fundamental capacities. (Potential)
1) Agency (Maintaining wholeness/identity) Pull to wholeness
2) Communion (Maintaining partness/relationship) Pull to partness
3) Transcendence (Becoming more wholeness) Pull upwards
4) Dissolution (Breaking down into constituent parts) Pull downwards
Lateral (Transverse – Direction of Change): *** NEW *** 5) Interiority – Change towards or within its interior (enfolding/recursion)
6) Exteriority – Change towards or without its exterior (unfolding/emergence)
One reason why Karl Marx is so revered is, because ‘intellectuals’ don’t realise that he based his political philosophy on the work of the philosophers of his day, as well as those which came before. Some aspects of these philosophies are now out-dated and have been superseded by modern philosophers who came after.
Most academics are not aware of this, because the works of Marx are so involved and complex, that they do not easily lend themselves to a single individual’s understanding (even for Marx himself!). So they simply don’t go into depth on their own or they trust what others say! They need not do any real thinking on their own. They must simply adopt this weaponised and cancerous perspective to see themselves as part of a larger idea and to create and discover themselves within it.
Another reason for the continued adherence to his political philosophy is that it provides those, who are addicted to control and collectivism, to maintain their efforts to dominate and subjugate those, such as we, who do not belong to their hegemony: the banksters.
While these very banksters control to what extent and which corporations fund research, they continue to put their money where their belief structure lies.
Here are two examples of how Marx was in way beyond his depth regarding philosophy in particular and history in general:
The Marxist dialectic was adapted from Hegel’s Dialectic and weaponised via historical materialism. It purports to be a reflection of the real world created by man, but it is faulty. His version of history was being perverted by a collectivist mental lens.
Also, the dialectic has been found to be incomplete. There are other mechanisms responsible for change as well determining truth of validity claims. Modern philosophy can literally ‘sink his ships’ on every principle he re-defined and/or incorrectly understood.
I must add that I have been examining his ‘work’ over many years now. I have also compared it to the work of others such as Henry George and Lysander Spooner among many others. My work is going to reveal how childish, despite how involved/complex, that mind of Marx was.
There will come a day when adherents to Marxism will be ashamed of themselves. They will finally see that they have allowed themselves to be indoctrinated (duped) into a weaponised and destructive system that, had they thought through it in light of other philosophers, would not have ever taken hold.
The premature globalist parasites have injected into our cultures that Marxism is ‘intellectual’ and ‘sophisticated’, because it affords them with an ideology capable of allowing the destruction of present social and cultural constructions without reservation. Why should we concern ourselves with out-dated cultural and social entities when utopia awaits for us?
They subscribe to the false meme: “The ends justify their means.”when, in actuality, the means determine their ends. Destructive means… destructive ends.
Marxism is a means for the tyranny of a few to be made palatable to the masses. The very same families who were responsible for Imperialism are those now aiding and abetting the invasion of Europe as well as the social engineering being worked upon our societies and cultures.
My life would be a success in my own eyes if I only achieve this goal, but my life’s work has something much greater in meaning.
The reason why it is so hard to prove is actually very easy to answer. These constants, identities, and variations being referred to in this post, and others like it, all lay embedded in a far deeper substrate than current mathematics has yet explored.
Mathematics has been, and always shall be my ‘first love’, and it has provided for me all of these years. I am not criticising mathematics in any way. It is my firm belief that mathematics will overcome this current situation and eventually be quite able to examine these kinds of questions in a much more expansive and deeper way.
We need to extend our examination of mathematical knowledge, both in depth and in scope, out farther and in deeper than numbers (sets and categories as well – even more below) have yet done. I’ll introduce you to a pattern you may have already noticed in the current stage of our mathematical endeavour.
We all know there are numbers which lay outside of Q which we call Irrational numbers. There are also numbers which lay outside of R which we call Imaginary numbers. They have both been found, because the domain of questioning exceeded the range of answers being sought within the properties each of those numbers. This pattern continues in other ways, as well.
We also know there are abstractions and/or extensions of Complex numbers where the ‘air starts to get thin’ and mathematical properties start to ‘fade away’: Quaternions, Octonians, Sedenions,…
This pattern continues in other ways: Holors, for example, which extend and include mathematical entities such as Complex numbers, scalars, vectors, matrices, tensors, Quaternions, and other hypercomplex numbers, yet are still capable of providing a different algebra which is consistent with real algebra.
The framing of our answers to mathematical questions is also evolving. Logic was, for example, limited to quite sophisticated methods that all were restricted to a boolean context. Then we found other questions which led to boundary, multi-valued, fuzzy, and fractal logics, among a few others I haven’t mentioned yet.
Even our validity claims are evolving. We are beginning to ask questions which require answers which transcend relationship properties such as causality, equivalence, and inference in all of their forms. Even the idea of a binary relationship is being transcended into finitary versions (which I use in my work). There are many more of these various patterns which I may write about in the future.
They all have at least one thing in common:each time we extend our reach in terms of scope or depth, we find new ways of seeing things which we saw before and/or see new things which were before not seen.
There are many ‘voices’ in this ‘mathematical fugue’ which ‘weaves’ everything together: they are the constants, variations, identities, and the relationships they share with each other.
The constants e, π, i, ϕ, c, g, h all denote or involve ‘special’ relationships of some kind. Special in the sense that they are completely unique.
e is the identity of change (some would say proportion, but that’s not entirely correct).
π is the identity of periodicity. There’s much more going on with than simply being a component of arc or, in a completely different context, a component of area…
These relationships actually transcend mathematics. Mathematics ‘consumes’ their utility (making use of those relationships), but they cannot be ‘corralled in’ as if they were ‘horses on the farm’ of mathematics. Their uniqueness cannot be completely understood via equivalence classes alone.
They are ubiquitous and therefore not algebraic.
They are pre-nascent to number, equivalence classes, and validity claims and are therefore not rational.
These are not the only reasons.
It’s also about WHERE they are embedded in the knowledge substrate compared to the concept of number, set, category…. They lay more deeply embedded in that substrate.
The reason why your question is so hard for mathematics to answer is, because our current mathematics is, as yet, unable to decide. We need to ‘see’ these problems with a more complete set of ‘optics’ that will yield them to mathematical scrutiny.
What I’m going to say is going to be unpopular, but I cannot reconcile my own well-being without giving you an answer to this problem from my perspective.
My only reason for reluctantly writing this, knowing what kind of reaction I could receive is, because I abhor that some of the best minds on our planet are occupying themselves with this problem. It pains me to no end to see humanity squandering its power for a problem that, as it is currently framed, is unanswerable. It goes further than this though. There will come a time when questions such as this one will be cast upon the junk heap of humanity’s growth throughout history. It will take its rightful place along such ideas as phrenology.
Here’s why I say this:
The problem is firmly and completely embedded in Functional Reductionism. I say this, because the problem’s framing requires us to peel away the contextual embedding of the problems for which it is supposed to clarify.
This is just one of its problems. Here’s another:
Since the data for this problem (and those like it) are themselves algorithms, they are compelled to be functionally reduced versions of mind problem solving (varying types of heuristics and decision problems) which reduces the problem’s causal domain and its universe of discourse even further. How can a specification based upon functionally reduced data be again used as data for the problem’s solution in the first place?
That means that this problem has no independent existence nor causal efficacy. Everywhere I have looked at this problem, the definitions of NP-Hard and NP-Complete do not lead to proving anything useful. We cannot ‘generalise’ the mind by reducing it to some metric of complexity. Complexity is also not how the universe works as Occam’s Razor shows.
I am prepared to defend my position should someone have the metal to test me on this. Another thing: I wish I could have left this alone, but we all need to wake up to this nonsense.
This system is quite interesting if we allow ourselves to talk about the qualities of infinite sets as if we can know their character completely. The problem is, any discussion of an infinite set includes their definition which MAY NOT be the same as any characterisation which they may actually have.
Also, and more importantly, interiority as well as exteriority are accessible without the use of this system. These ‘Hyperreals’ are an ontological approach to epistemology via characteristics/properties we cannot really know. There can be no both true and verifiable validity claim in this system.
Words are symbolic indications and/or conveyors of meaning and are not that meaning in themselves.
Meaning is found, stored, and manipulated in our minds. This is why different languages are capable, in varying degrees of usefulness, to convey meaning which is very similar to that found via the symbols of any other.
It It is also the reason why there are words indicating meaning that are not found in other languages; or, if found in a different language, the other language requires more of its own structure, dynamics, and resonance to convey the same meaning.
For example: the words ‘déjà vu’ in French are found in German ‘schon gesehen’ and in English ‘already seen’, but these phrases do not convey the full meaning found in the French version. To counter this deficit, their meaning in other languages must be ‘constructed’ out of or ‘fortified’ by the careful use of longer strings of symbols. This additional construction and/or fortification may even fail at times. This is often where the word phrase from a different language is simply added to the language in which the concept is missing.
This same situation is found in the literature of many languages. The words used to convey meaning are condensed and may contain more meaning than is usually the case. In this regard, even the person reading/hearing the words may not possess the competence necessary to catch this condensed meaning in its fullness.
Mathematical expressions, albeit more precise, are also indications of meaning. They are more robust in their formulation, but at ever-increasing depth or scope, even they may fail to reliably or conveniently convey meaning.
Our understanding of what words mean is not always accurate, but where our mutual understanding of the meaning of words overlaps, and the degree to which they overlap, is where their meaning can be shared.
Our own personal understanding of words is measured by our ability to apply their meaning in our lives.
There is also a false meme, which I would like to clarify.
“Knowledge is Power!”
It is wrongly said that ‘Knowledge is power’. The truth is another: Knowledge is the measure of usefulness of what we understand and is the only true expression of its ‘power’.
The value of Knowledge is found in its usefulness and not in its possession.
Another chapter in my attempt to help break the ‘spell’ of the category theoretical ‘ontologicisation’ of our world.
This may seem to many as a purely academic question, but we all need to realise that all of what we consider a modern way of thinking rests upon ‘mental technologies’ such as Category Theory.
Academics are literally taking the ‘heart’ out of how our world is being defined!
If we don’t pay attention, humanity will continue losing its way.
Category theory is a wonderful and powerful tool; nevertheless category theory, with all of its utility, is purely ontological. It can masterfully answer questions such as ‘Who?’, ‘What?’, and ‘How?’.
However; it is regretfully inadequate to form a comprehensive representation of knowledge, for it lacks expression of epistemological value, which are the very reasons for is use. Epistemology is about answering the questions of ‘Why?’, ‘What does it mean?’, ‘What is my purpose?’,…
Answers to questions of this kind are implicitly supplied by us during our consumption of the utility afforded by category theory. We often are so beguiled by this power of categorical expression that we don’t realise that is we ourselves who bring the ‘missing elements’ to what it offers as an expression of knowledge.
It does a wonderful job with exteriority (ontology), but cannot sufficiently describe nor comprehensively access interiority (epistemology). Therefore, it has limited metaphysical value with respect to philosophy in general.
Philosophies of mind, of language, or of learning are not comprehensive using only category theoretical tools.
Categorical structures are highly portable, but they can describe/express only part of what is there. There are structures, dynamics, and resonance that the ontology and functionalism in category theory completely turns a blind eye to.
More general than category theory is knowledge representation. It includes and surpasses category theory in many areas, both in scope and depth, but in particular: knowledge representation includes not just the ontological aspects of what we know, it goes further to describe the epistemological as well.
The qualities of Truth, Goodness, Beauty, Clarity,… can be defined and identified within a knowledge representation if the representation is not restricted to ontology. When category theory is used for the purpose of defining qualia, the objects must first be ontologised and functionally reduced. Trying to grasp them with tools restricted to category theory (or even semiotics) is like grasping into thin air.
Category theory, although very powerful, is no match for the challenge of a complete representation of knowledge. Category theory will tell you how to tie your shoes, but it can’t tell you why you are motivated to do so.
First, allow me to rename theses numbers during the remainder of this post to lateral numbers, in accordance to the naming convention as was recommended by Gauss. I have a special reason for using this naming convention. It will later become apparent why I’ve done this.
If we examine lateral numbers algebraically, a pattern emerges:
When we raise lateral numbers to higher powers, the answers do not get higher and higher in value like other numbers do. Instead, a pattern emerges after every 4th multiplication. This pattern never ceases.
All other numbers, besides laterals, have a place on what currently is called the ‘Real number line’.
I qualify the naming of the Real Numbers, because even their conceptualisation has come into question by some very incisive modern mathematicians. That is a very ‘volatile’ subject for conventional mathematicians and would take us off on a different tangent, so I’ll leave that idea for a different post.
If we look for laterals on any conventional Real number line, we will never ‘locate’ them.They are found there, but we need to look at numbers differently in order to ‘see’ them.
Lateral numbers solve one problem in particular: to find a number, which when multiplied by itself, yields another negative number.
Lateral numbers‘unify’ the number line with the algebraic pattern shown above.
2 is positive and, when multiplied by itself, yields a positive number. It maintains direction on the number line.
When one of the numbers (leaving squaring briefly) being multiplied is negative, the multiplication yields a negative number. The direction ‘flips’ 180° into the opposite direction.
Multiplying -2 by -2 brings us back to the positive direction, because of the change resulting in multiplying by a negative number, which always flips our direction on the number line.
So, it appears as if there’s no way of landing on a negative number, right? We need a number that only rotates 90°, instead of the 180° when using negative numbers. This is where lateral numbers come into play.
If we place another lateral axis perpendicular to our ‘Real’ number line, we obtain the desired fit of geometry with our algebra.
When we multiply our ‘Real’ number 1 by i, we get ialgebraically, which geometrically corresponds to a 90° rotation from 1 to i.
Now, multiplying by i again results in i squared, which is -1. This additional 90° rotation equals the customary 180° rotation when multiplying by -1 (above).
We may even look at this point as if we were viewing it down a perpendicular axis of the origin itself (moving in towards the origin from our vantage point, through the origin, and then out the back of our screen).
[If we allow this interpretation, we can identify the ‘spin’ of a point around the axis of its own origin! The amount of spin is determined by how much the point moves laterally in terms of i.
We may even determine in which direction the rotation is made. I’ll add how this is done to this post soon.]
Each time we increase our rotation by multiplying by a factor of i, we increase our rotation another 90°, as seen here:
The cycle repeats itself on every 4th power of i.
We could even add additional lateral numbers to any arbitrary point. This is what I do in my knowledge representations of holons. For example a point at say 5 may be expressed as any number of laterals i, j, k,… simply by adding or subtracting some amount of i, j, k,…:
5 + i + j +k +…
Or better as:
[5, i, j, k,…]
Seeing numbers in this fashion makes a point n-dimensional.
Physics is only complex, because it’s in someone’s interest to have it that way.The way to understanding, even if you don’t understand science, was paved with words. Even if those words led only to a symbolic form of understanding.
Common ordinary language is quite capable of explaining physics. Mathematics is simply more precise than common language. Modern Mathematics pays the price for that precision by being overly complex and subservient to causal and compositional relations. These are limitations that metaphysics and philosophy do not have.
Words in language have a structure that mathematics alone will never see as it looks for their structure and dynamics in the wrong places and in the wrong ways. Modern pure mathematics lacks an underlying expression of inherent purpose in its ‘tool set’.
With natural language we are even able to cross the ‘event horizon’ into interiority (where unity makes its journey through the non-dual into the causal realm). It is a place where mathematics may also ‘visit’ and investigate, but only with some metaphysical foundation to navigate with. The ‘landscape’ is very different there… where even time and space ‘behave’ (manifest) differently. Yet common language can take us there! Why? It’s made of the ‘right stuff’!
The mono-logical gaze with its incipient ontological foundation, as found in (modern) pure mathematics, is too myopic. That’s why languages such as Category Theory, although subtle and general in nature, even lose their way. They can tell us how we got there, but none can tell us why we wanted to get there in the first place!
It’s easy to expose modern corporate science’s (mainstream) limitations with this limited tool set – you need simply ask questions like: “What in my methodology inherently expresses why am I looking in here?” (what purpose) or “What assumptions am I making that I’m not even aware of?” or “Why does it choose to do that? and you’re already there where ontology falls flat on its face.
Even questions like these are met with disdain, intolerance and ridicule (the shadow knows it can’t see them and wills to banish what it cannot)! And that’s where science begins to resemble religion (psyence).
Those are also some of the reasons why philosophers and philosophy have almost disappeared from the mainstream. I’ll give you a few philosophical hints to pique your interest.
Why do they call it Chaos Theory and not Cosmos Theory? Why coincidence and not synchronicity? Why entropy and not centropy?
… Why particle and not field?
(many more examples…)
Yes, in knowledge representation, the answer is the interior of a holon.
Ontologies go ‘out of scope’ when entering interiority. The common ontological representation via mathematical expression is 1/0.
When we ‘leave’ the exterior ontology of current mathematics by replacing number with relation, we enter the realm of interiority.
In the interior of relation, we access the epistemological aspects of any relation.
As an aide to understanding – Ontology answers questions like: ‘What?’, ‘Who?’, ‘Where?’, and ‘When?’. Epistemology answers questions like: ‘Why?’ and ‘How do we know?’
In vortex mathematics 1/0 is known as ‘entering the vortex’.
There are other connections to some new developments in mathematics involving what is called ‘inversive geometry’.
Example: (oversimplified for clarity)
If we think of say… the point [x, y, z] in space, we may assign x, y, and z any number value except where one of these coordinates gets involved in division where 0 is not allowed (up to this point in common mathematics) as a denominator. x/z is not allowed when z=0, for example.
Now, if we are dealing with interiority, numbers are replaced by relationships, such as [father, loves, son].
What if the son has died? Is the relationship still valid?
The answer to this question lies within the interior of those involved in the relation.
They are wonderful tools to explain much of our world, but lack ‘The Right Stuff’ to handle the metaphysical underpinnings of anything near a Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy of Language , or a Philosophy of Learning.
This is, because Category Theory specialises on roughly half of the Noosphere. It does a wonderful job on exteriority, but cannot sufficiently describe nor comprehensively access interiority.
Therefore, as is the case with Semiotics, has limited metaphysical value with respect to philosophy in general.
For example:philosophies of mind, language, or learning are not possible using only category theoretical tools and/or semiotics.
4.4.2 Knowledge is the Terminal Object of Visualisation states:
“The ultimate purpose of the visualisation process is to gain Knowledge of the original System. When this succeeds (when the diagram commutes) then the result is a ‘truth’ relationship between the Knowledge and the System. When this process breaks down and we fail to deduce correct conclusions then the diagram does not commute.”
I want to also comment on Figure 3 (which also exposes missing or false premises in the paper), but I will wait until I have discussed the assertions in the quote above which the authors of this paper reference, accept, and wish to justify/confirm.
1) The purpose of a representation is NOT to gain knowledge; rather, to express knowledge. Also, truth has nothing to do with knowledge except when that value is imposed upon it for some purpose. Truth value is a value that knowledge may or not ‘attend’ (participate in).
1a) The ‘truth value’ of the System (‘system’ is a false paradigm [later, perhaps] and a term that I also vehemently disagree with) does not always enter into the ‘dialogue’ between any knowledge that is represented and the observer interpreting that knowledge.
2) The interpretation of a representation is not to “deduce correct conclusions”; rather, to understand the meaning (semantics and epistemology) of what is represented. ‘Correct’ understanding is not exclusive to understanding nor is it necessary or sufficient for understanding a representation, because that understanding finds expression in the observer.
2a) ‘Correct’, as used in this paragraph, is coming from the outside (via the choice of which data [see Fig. 3] is represented to the observer) and may have no correspondence (hence may never ever commute) whatever to what that term means for the observer.
The authors are only talking about ontologies. That is a contrived and provincial look at the subject they are supposing to examine.
There may (and usually are) artefacts inherent in any collection and collation of data. The observer is forced to make ‘right’ (‘correct’) conclusions from that data which those who collected it have ‘seeded’ (tainted) with their own volition.
‘System’ (systematising) anything is Reductionism. This disqualifies the procedure at its outset.
They are proving essentially that manipulation leads to a ‘correct’ (their chosen version) representation of a ‘truth’ value.
I could tie my shoelaces into some kind of knot and think it were a ‘correct’ way to do so if the arrows indicate this. This is why paying too much attention to a navigation system can have one finding themselves at the bottom of a river!
The paper contains assumptions that are overlooked and terms that are never adequately defined! How can you name variables without defining their meaning? They then serve no purpose and must be removed from domain of discourse.
Categorical structures are highly portable, but they can describe/express only part of what is there. There are structure, dynamics, and resonance that ontology and functionalism completely turns a blind eye to.
The qualities of Truth, Goodness, Beauty, Clarity,… (even Falsehood, Badness, Ugliness, Obscurity,…) can be defined and identified within a knowledge representation if the representation is not restricted to ontology alone.
In order to express these qualities in semiotics and category theory, they must first be ontologised funtionally (reduced). Trying to grasp them with tools restricted to semiotics and category theory is like grasping into thin air.
That is actually the point I’m trying to make. Category Theory, and even Semiotics, each have their utility, but they are no match for the challenge of a complete representation of knowledge.
Here an excerpt from a short summary of a paper I am writing that provides some context to answer this question:
What Knowledge is not:
Knowledge is not very well understood so I’ll briefly point out some of the reasons why we’ve been unable to precisely define what knowledge is thus far. Humanity has made numerous attempts at defining knowledge. Plato taughtthat justified truth and belief are required for something to be considered knowledge.
Throughout the history of the theory of knowledge (epistemology), others have done their best to add to Plato’s work or create new or more comprehensive definitions in their attempts to ‘contain’ the meaning of meaning (knowledge). All of these efforts have failed for one reason or another.
Using truth value and ‘justification’ as a basis for knowledge or introducing broader definitions or finer classifications can only fail.
I will now provide a small set of examples of why this is so.
Truth value is only a value that knowledge may attend.
Knowledge can be true or false, justified or unjustified, because
knowledge is the meaning of meaning
What about false or fictitious knowledge? [Here’s the reason why I say no.]
Their perfectly valid structure and dynamics are ignored by classifying them as something else than what they are. Differences in culture or language even make no difference, because the objects being referred to have meaning that transcends language barriers.
Another problem is that knowledge is often thought to be primarily semantics or even ontology based. Both of these cannot be true for many reasons. In the first case (semantics):
There already exists knowledge structure and dynamics for objects we cannot or will not yet know.
The same is true for objects to which meaning has not yet been assigned, such as ideas, connections and perspectives that we’re not yet aware of or have forgotten. Their meaning is never clear until we’ve become aware of or remember them.
In the second case (ontology): collations that are fed ontological framing are necessarily bound to memory, initial conditions of some kind and/or association in terms of space, time, order, context, relation,… We build whole catalogues, dictionaries and theories about them: Triads, diads, quints, ontology charts, neural networks, semiotics and even the current research in linguistics are examples.
Even if an ontology or set of them attempts to represent intrinsic meaning, it can only do so in a descriptive ‘extrinsic’ way. An ontology, no matter how sophisticated, is incapable of generating the purpose of even its own inception, not to mention the purpose of the objects to which it corresponds.
The knowledge is not coming from the data itself, it is always coming from the observer of the data, even if that observer is an algorithm.
Therefore ontology-based semantic analysis can only produce the artefacts of knowledge, such as search results, association to other objects, ‘knowledge graphs’ like Cayley,…
Real knowledge precedes, transcends and includes our conceptions, cognitive processes, perception, communication, reasoning and is more than simply related to our capacity of acknowledgement.
In fact knowledge cannot even be completely systematised; it can only be interacted with using ever increasing precision.
[For those interested, my summary is found at: A Precise Definition of Knowledge – Knowledge Representation as a Means to Define the Meaning of Meaning Precisely: http://bit.ly/2pA8Y8Y
Change lies deeper in the knowledge substrate than time.
Knowledge is not necessarily coupled with time, but it can be influenced by it. It can be influenced by change of any kind: not only time.
Knowledge may exist in a moment and vanish. The incipient perspective(s) it contains may change. Or the perspective(s) that it comprises may resist change.
Also, knowledge changes with reality and vice versa.
Time requires events to influence this relationship between knowledge and reality.
Knowledge cannot be relied upon to be a more accurate expression of reality, whether time is involved or not, because the relationship between knowledge and reality is not necessarily dependent upon time, nor is there necessarily a coupling of the relationship between knowledge and reality. The relationships of ‘more’ and ‘accurate’ are also not necessarily coupled with time.
Example: Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth long before Copernicus published. The ‘common knowledge’ of the time (Copernicus knew about Eratosthenes, but the culture did not) was that the Earth was flat.
Answer: Philosophy is more fundamental than mathematics.
This is changing, but mathematics is incapable at this time of comprehensively describing epistemology, whereas, philosophy can.
Hence; mathematics is restrained to pure ontology. It does not reach far enough into the universe to distinguish anything other than ontologies. This will change soon. I am working on exactly this problem. See http://mathematica-universalis.com for more information on my work. (I’m not selling anything on this site.)
Also, mathematics cannot be done without expressing some kind of philosophy to underlie any axioms which it needs to function.
Implication is a ‘given’ in mathematics. It assumes a relation which we call implication. Mathematics certainly ‘consumes’ them as a means to create inferences, but the inference form, the antecedent, and the consequent are implicit axioms based upon an underlying metaphysics.
Ergo: philosophy is more general and universal than mathematics.
Often epistemology is considered separate from metaphysics, but that is incorrect, because you cannot answer questions as to ‘How do we know?” without an underlying metaphysical framework within which such a question and answer can be considered.
Universal Constants, Variations, and Identities (Dimension)
#18 Dimension is a spectrum or domain of awareness: they essentially build an additional point of view or perspective.
We live in a universe of potentially infinite dimension. Also, there are more spatial dimensions than three and more temporal dimensions than time (the only one science seems to recognize). Yes, I’m aware of what temporal means; Temporal is a derived attribute of a much more fundamental concept: Change. One important caveat: please bear in mind that my little essay here is not a complete one. The complete version will come when I publish my work.
The idea of dimension is not at all well understood. The fact is, science doesn’t really know what dimension is; rather, only how they may be used! Science and technology ‘consume’ their utility without understanding their richness. Otherwise they would have clarified them for us by now.
Those who may have clarified what they are get ignored and/or ridiculed, because understanding them requires a larger mental ‘vocabulary’ than Physicalism, Reductionism, and Ontology can provide.
Our present science and technology is so entrenched in dogma, collectivism, and special interest, that they no longer function as they once did. The globalist parasites running our science and technology try their best to keep us ‘on the farm’ by restricting dimension, like everything else, to the purely physical. It’s all they can imagine.
That’s why many of us feel an irritation without being able to place our finger on it when we get introduced to dimension. We seem to ‘know’ that something just doesn’t ‘rhyme’ with their version.
Time and space may be assigned dimensionality, in a purely physical sense if necessary, but there are always underlying entities much deeper in meaning involved that are overlooked and/or remain unknown which provide those properties with their meaning. This is why the more sensitive among us sense something is wrong or that something’s missing.
Let us temporarily divorce ourselves from the standard ‘spatial’ and ‘temporal’ kinds of ‚dimension’ for a time and observe dimension in its essence.
Definitions are made from them: in fact, dimensions function for definitions just as organs do for the body. In turn, dimension has its own set of ‘organs’ as well! I will talk about those ‘organs’ below.
Dimension may appear different to us depending upon our own state of mind, level of development, kind of reasoning we choose, orientation we prefer, expectations we may have,… but down deep…
Everything, even attributes of all kinds, involve dimension. We must also not forget partial dimension such as fractals over complex domains and other metaphysical entities like mind and awareness which may or may not occupy dimension. Qualia (water is ‘wet’, angry feels like ‘this’, the burden is ‘heavy’) are also dimensional.
Dimensions are ‘compasses’ for navigating conceptual landscapes. We already think in multiple dimension without even being aware of it! Here’s is an example of how that is: [BTW: This is simply an example to show how dimension can be ‘stacked’ or accrued. The items below were chosen arbitrarily and could be replaced by any other aspects.]
♦ Imagine a point in space (we are already at 3d [x,y,z]) – actually at this level there are even more dimensions involved, but I will keep this simple for now.
♦ it moves in space and occupies a specific place in time (now 4d) 3d + 1 time dimension
♦ say it changes colour at any particular time or place (5d)
♦ let it now grow and shrink in diameter (6d)
♦ if it accelerates or slows its movement (7d)
♦ if it is rotating (8d)
♦ if it is broadcasting a frequency (9d)
♦ what if it is aware of other objects or not (10d)
♦ say it is actively seeking contact (connection) with other objects around it (11d)
♦ … (the list may go on and on)
As you can see above, dimensions function like aspects to any object of thought.
Dimensionality becomes much clearer when we free ourselves from the yoke of all that Physicalism, Reductionism, and Ontology.
Let’s now look at some of their ‘organs’ as mentioned above as well as other properties they have in common:
They precede all entities except awareness.
Awareness congeals into them.
They form a first distinction.
They have extent.
They are integrally distributed.
They have an axial component.
They may appear as scalar fields.
Their references form fibrations.
They are ‘aware’ of self/other.
Their structural/dynamic/harmonic signature is unique.
They provide reference which awareness uses to create perspective meaning.
I’m referring to the men and women who, as this video exemplifies, subscribe to a sort of ‘Prometheus Doctrine’; which for me is like a fetish of needing to destroy in order to create. They talk about their fear and project their fear onto and into our science and technology instead of quelling the sources of that fear from the very beginning. The source of their fear IS preventable!
If we were advancing technology for the right reasons and using the right means, we wouldn’t have anything to fear! The ‘snake’, through guilt and even ‘karma’, calls forth its own destruction and even begins to eat itself!
Also, the video literally reeks of the disdain and disregard (contempt) for humanity and the impetuousness of a science running amok (without morals and ethics) that has become the fashion in our mainstream trendy pabulum which premature globalist social engineering has created for our consumption. All branches of the human endeavour have been infected or affected by this social engineering in some way.
At university our youth is being incrementaly infected (radicalised) by this ‘bug’ of disdain and we should all be aware of it before it becomes our undoing! You see it when you ask them to consider the ramifications of the science and technology being created now, and they respond with “You’d better get used to it, because that’s the way it is.”It resembles the ‘bitch’ meme that is pervasive in the ‘prison culture’ social engineering I’ve been referring to above.
Their callous and impetuous response is paired with a complete wilful ignorance of the consequences of what science and technology (and their steady weaponisation) are doing or potentially can do to our home here on planet Earth as well as to ourselves. The social engineers will have us worrying about how our free speech may adversely affect others and therewith attempt to quell debate by means of political correctness (PC).
The youth of humanity has been abused by this kind of thing since at least the late 18th Century, because it is widely known (and not spoken of) that they, with rare exception, are not yet able to compete intellectually with adults. Adolescents sense this, which exacerbates their normal impetuousness, so they attempt to compensate for this perceived deficit by ‘attaching’ themselves to some any deeper perspectives they are introduced to. The mainstream ‘trendy’ has been ‘weaponised’ so these are usually various destructive lines of thinking (Communism, Satanism,…). They are provided with a narrow, but sometimes deep understanding by simply taking on these lines of thought with their peers. By doing this, they may well even surpass the understanding of the adults around them, but the knowledge imprint only stands out like a wart. This can be recognised, because the corresponding hallmark lines of development in wisdom and insight, that always accompany and provide a context for that knowledge, are absent.
The parasites perched upon humanity know this. That’s why they want our children so soon and so long. Students literally get ‘caught in the headlights’ of the teachers and professors, who are themselves victims of this incrementalism. The controllers can then direct this lack of experience and wisdom (naivety) against the rest of the population by indoctrinating our youth into zealots.
BTW: This post is not here to ridicule nor ostracise anyone! It is intended to wake everyone up! In the end we are ALL being manipulated (including Nick Bostrom) by the corporations who are controlling and transforming our science, education, media, governance,… I’ve had to delete comments below from disrespectful people who now want to criticize Nick Bostrom personally. I will not have that here!
This writing is not a criticism of Nick Bostrom, rather a criticism of the education system and science that subtly ‘fashions’ how we ourselves as well as our youth and those directly involved (including Mr. Bostrom) see themselves through science, philosophy, mathematics, and the arts; in fact, nearly all of the human endeavour has been infected or affected by it.
@00:31“Okay, let’s look at the modern human condition…”
He shows a ‘doctored’ image of a man wearing glasses with his eye size increased to almost fill the lenses. I find myself asking myself if he is referring to the “I work with a bunch of mathematicians, philosophers, and computer scientists…” he talks about here?:@00:11
It sure isn’t clear of who he’s referring to with his ‘human condition’! Here is our first indication of the disrespect for humanity his action here reveals. He seems not to have considered or known that this very condition of humanity that he’s making light of for his audience Is, in fact, a result of the very science he represents!
When I see an image of someone who looks as in this image I think of Pavlov or B.F. Skinner with their ‘contributions’ to humanity (weaponized social engineering)! I ask myself why he chose this image particularly and not another that would have been as funny, but not so unforgiving of humans who have bought into the social engineering they’ve been subjected to?
@00:43“We are recently arrived ‘guests’ on this planet.” We are the living Earth! We are as much a part of this planet as anything else living on/in/above it. We are NOT guests on this planet, it’s our home!
@00:49“Think about the world was created… the Earth was created one year ago.” I find it interesting that he uses the word ‘created’ instead saying something like ‘formed itself’ or ‘accrued its main composition’. It’s almost the model that Carl Sagan offered in his Cosmos Series and elsewhere, but doesn’t quite ring as true.
@01:07–He uses a graph depicting GDP (Gross Domestic Product) to make statements about societal changes over thousands of years! This is not only wrong, the metrics don’t even correlate with each other! (Notice how the people laugh? I wonder how many of them really know what they’re laughing at?)
@00:37-[regarding technology] “That’s why we are so productive.” We have always been productive. Technology is nothing new. [Which he acknowledges!] Even the militarization of technology isn’t new. He refers to some [ap]proximate cost idea he doesn’t explain nor provide a context for. Technology contains both potential and real costs and returns in many terms (social, cultural, personal,…), for the record. This has not changed over time.
@01:43“We have to move back farther… to the ultimate costs.” He then introduces two “highly distinguished gentlemen”: Kanzi and Ed Witten. I dispute his choice of examples to go with, as Nassim Haramein http://resonance.is/ or Nikola Tesla would have been better choices from where I stand, but he didn’t ask me, did he? 😉
I wonder what we’ll be saying about Super-string and M-Theory in 100 years? I doubt seriously it will stand the test of time as the theories are almost certainly wrong.
@01:57“If we look under the ‘hood’, this is what we find. Basically the same thing. [!]… one is a little larger. It maybe also have a few tricks in the way that it’s wired… These invisible differences cannot be too complicated; however, because there have only[!] been more than 250,000 generations since our last common ancestor and we know that complicated mechanisms take a long time to evolve.” I guess that’s the reason the apes didn’t get very far?!?! Or what am I to make of this proposition? At some crucial juncture in the past the apes simply decided to turn left instead of right? Or did we? In any case he doesn’t reveal to us exactly what those ‘invisible differences’ may be.
@02:21“So a bunch of relatively minor changes take us from Kanzi to Witten.” Still no mention of what the changes are and I still don’t see why Kanzi isn’t writing Haiku!
@02:33“So this then seems pretty obvious that everything we have achieved pretty much and everything we care about depends crucially on some relatively minor changes that made the human mind.” He provides no basis for that statement and moves on to a corollary without even explaining this massive jump from somewhere around the time of a common ancestor to what the human mind has become!
@02:43“And the corollary of course, is that any further changes that could significantly change the substrate of thinking could have potentially enormous consequences” Wait just one minute! There has been no justification for the prior proposition, not to mention a justifiable connection it may have to some ‘substrate of thought’! Having a common phylogenic ancestor who has mastered over 200 lexical tokens is nothing compared to the subtlety and sophistication of the human mind!
@02:55“Some of my colleges think that we are on the verge of something that could cause a profound change in that substrate… and that is machine super-intelligence. Artificial intelligence used to be…” So what does this mean? Are we now entering an age of ‘post-artificial intelligence’? A sort of neo-AI? Could you also tell me more about that ‘substrate’?
@03:29“Today the action is really around machine learning. Rather than hand-crafting knowledge representations and features we create algorithms that learn…” Here he’s getting into an area he seems uncomfortable with. I suspect, for myself, one reason why. He is revealing that he’s never seen nor been a part of building a knowledge representation that was completely satisfying to those who made it!
It further reveals that he’s working without one or doesn’t trust any philosophy of knowledge or mind as a basis for the scientific methods he’s been involved with! A set of underlying philosophies of mind, language, and knowledge are absolutely required!
These facts are verified a bit later…@04:05“Now of course AI is still nowhere near having the same powerful cross-domain ability to learn and plan as a human being has.” He then reveals that he’s also locked into the brain-based-model of mind that is reminiscent of the adherence to phrenology in the early to middle 19th Century.
He then asks how far are we in being able to match those tricks. This leads him to mention a survey of some of the leading AI experts on just when we will likely reach a stage of human ability. Answers ranged from 2040 to 2050 (with estimates of 90% at around 2070/2075!!!).
@05:01“The truth is, no one really knows.” And they won’t know either, because they aren’t allowing all that is required for ‘intelligence’ to be included into the endeavour. I firmly believe that our current scientists will regret this phase of their history. Their names are on the line for the conceptual barren land they have created for themselves and are selling to us. They are not even doing themselves a favour; rather, are doing the corporations which pay them one!
The corporations and the banksters which run them who stand above the law are those who profit from this ‘science’, because it provides them with thin veils of plausibility to divert huge sums of money, minds, and other resources towards aims that few of us would ever allow if we knew them.
@05:05“What we do know is that the ultimate limits to information processing in machine substrate lie far outside the limits in biological tissue.” It seems we have now moved from ‘thinking substrate’ to ‘machine substrate’ without ever knowing what these terms mean. How can he know this? We haven’t even developed a successful philosophy of mind yet! There are many aspects of knowing, feeling, thinking, learning,… in organic intelligence that we have yet to understand.
@05:15“This comes down to physics.” He then compares the latest hardware (transistors) with neurons and means to show that these differences are meaningful in making the determination above and sticks with the size limitations of our brains being a size limitation for mind (again as if the mind were limited to the brain!)…
Note also that he is referring to information processing! If he had a decent set of knowledge representations to review, he would know that those tiny little neurons are not ‘transistors’ for the mind. There’s much going on in the mind for which the physical brain cannot give an answer! He is essentially attempting to compare apples and oranges with each other with an incomplete understanding what the apples are made of.
@05:47“So the potential for super-intelligence kind of lies dormant in matter like much like the power of the atom lie dormant throughout history… patiently waiting there until 1945.” Atoms did quite well, actually, before we learned how they work and began to make destructive use of the energy that comprises them. We certainly didn’t liberate them; rather, learned how to break them!
He then shows a picture of an hydrogen bomb blast and says @05:59*“In this century scientists may learn to awaken the power of artificial intelligence… and I think we might then see an intelligence explosion.”
This begs the question of what intelligence is! Also, it is unclear what aspects is he referring to: logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, learning, knowledge, memory, creativity, problem solving,…? Later he tries to clarify this, but in so doing confuses the issue more.
Also there seems to be confusion here about the kind of intelligence (if we now pretend to have defined that term) would be that will have arisen. I’ll return to this later.
@06:10“Now most people when they think about what is smart and what is dumb I think have in mind a picture roughly like this:” and shows @06:15 a line (which is actually a distribution, but no one notices) with a “Village idiot” (using his terms) on the low end and Ed Witten on the the high end and a line stretching across between them.
It appears to be about knowledge of physics, because of Ed Witten being on it and how he then refers to what could have been Albert Einstein or any other favourite “Guru” we may want to choose. I wonder how this distribution would have ended up if he were to have measured empathy, situational awareness, or the knowledge of how the work your doing is being used for purposes other than good?
Where would Ed Witten, Albert Einstein, anyone of our choosing, or the village idiot then be found in the distribution. There are many kinds of ‘intelligence’ that are not even being considered here.
Notice how this distribution then magically transforms itself into an evolutionary path (which even appears to contain logarithmic/exponential value, as well). At least he has the village idiot higher on the scale than a chimp! I was almost expecting Kanzi to be somewhere in the middle of the distribution that the line represented before.
And then he says at @07:07“The train doesn’t stop at ‘Humanville station’…” This is more of that disdain I referred to above and will return to later in this post.
@07:11“It’s likely rather to ‘swoosh’ right by.” He doesn’t tell us why this will happen, but I suppose we will simply be surpassed by ‘somebody’ who’s got a bigger place to put his ‘brains’ in? That seems to be where this is heading…
@07:14“Now this has profound implications particularly when it comes to questions of power.” He compares the purely physical strength between a chimpanzee and a human (as if that were the only metric!) and uses that to transition us to accept his further propositions when he compares us to some kind of AI.
@07:27“… and yet the fate of Kanzi and his pals depends a lot more on what we humans do than what the chimpanzees do themselves.” So by analogy, this will also be true of ‘super-intelligence’ with respect to humans. We are expected to simply accept this analogy by ignoring (or here in this audience, not caring perhaps) the multitude of domains that influence and even determine the validity of the comparison!
And now we come to the middle of time in the presentation and the most provocative and humanly egocentric propositions made in the whole talk..
@07:43“Think about it. Machine intelligence is the last invention that humanity will ever need to make.” He has no standing to make this claim. He nor anyone else can know what new way of looking at our world may come. NONE of us can truthfully say we have/know all of the ‘variables’ and ‘dimensions’ to our universe. We have barely begun to scratch the surface in all of our endeavours and therefore, have no right to make claims like these.
Yet it gets even more insane, because he then yields humanity to the proverbial ‘chopping block’ of evolution:
@07:49“The machines will be better at inventing than we are and they will be doing so on digital time scales.” What kind of education would create these kinds of propositions?
Why do we stand for this? He’s obviously a highly intelligent human being. How can he have fallen for this kind of artificial relation of our place in the universe. We are likely not the only planet with intelligent life either!
We don’t even know enough about the creative process to explain away God, not to mention explaining punctuated evolution! And I’ve not even referred to the discovery process yet as an additional criterion for intelligence.
This is where the inherent disdain for humanity contained within our hijacked science and technology best reveals itself. It has poisoned some of the most brilliant minds of our children like we see here. He makes these naive claims and doesn’t even realize the measure of his presumption whilst doing so.
Even the remark about digital time scales is naive. We don’t know enough about the depth and subtlety of the concepts such as time (temporality) nor scaling (proportion) to make any of these claims.
There are other ways of looking at these rich concepts that could transform our view of what we think or presume to know and even how we see ourselves in light of those expanded perspectives and context.
This naivety is shown here, as well:
@07:55“What this means basically is a telescoping of the future.” and here:
@08:01“Think of all the crazy technologies that you could have imagined maybe humans could have developed in the fullness of time.”
I simply don’t know what to say about such a remark, except non sequitur. It simply doesn’t make any sense! Am I the only one who recognizes this fact? I sure hope not.
Our attention is then drawn to the blue hue surrounding the audience and I’m shocked to see how many people are being duped and even enthralled by this show. It’s as if they have taken their ‘phone off the hook’ and sit there like they’re watching a television. Some of them are even taking notes! We must stop being so trusting as to allow ourselves to be put in that position in the first place!
@08:24“Now a super-intelligence with such ‘technological maturity’ would be extremely powerful. And at least in some scenarios, it would be able to get what it wants.” There is no such thing as technological maturity and this underscores the disjunct the funders of science have created between who we are and our artefacts (what we make). He is talking about tools, isn’t he? He’s been trained to anthropomorphise technology (despite his reservations later below) as if it were ‘alive’ as we. Even if we were to create technology that is capable of mind, it would not represent an achievement of technology, rather an achievement of humanity. It would belong to our achievements.
@08:35“We would then have a future that would be shaped by the preferences of this AI.” How can we be sure? I ask this because, his next question is:
@08:41*“Now a good question is, ‘What are those preferences?’ Here it gets trickier.” He gives his warning about anthropomorphising and shows a picture of a terminator. Before explaining what these preferences may be, he suggests to conceive of the issue “more abstractly”.
@09:09“We need to think of intelligence as an optimization process. A process that steers the future into a particular set of configurations.” How does he know that intelligence is the only factor doing the steering of the future or even if it’s possible to ‘steer’ the future? At best we can ‘steer’ ourselves and thereby influence how that future unfolds!
Also, optimization is not the only process necessary and is not alone sufficient to influence future outcomes. He’s now not only comparing apples with oranges, he’s using thin slices of them!
@09:17“A super-intelligence is a really strong optimization process. It’s extremely good at using available means to achieve a state in which its goal is realized.” This is another fundamental deficit with AI (which would be more aptly named: synthetic intelligence): they continually miss other aspects of reality that have nothing to do with state and aren’t states at all!
The universe doesn’t restrict itself to states no matter how needful we are to make it be so Hidden Markov models, Bayesian statistics, for example are all dead-ends which are in the process of playing themselves out.
Goal-oriented ‘intelligence’ is also not all there is to mind and the achievement of goals is not automatically a measure of usefulness nor necessarily a sign of intelligence.
It gets naively ‘Turing-esque’ with this statement:
@09:27“This means there’s no necessary connection between being highly intelligent in this sense and having an objective that we humans would find worth while or meaningful.” He’s using the word ‘connection’ here when he can only mean ‘difference’ for it to make any sense going from the way he’s framed the sentence.
I’ve written elsewhere on Turing, so I won’t go into detail, but this statement offers the same kind of fraud that the Turing Test offers us, namely: If a machine can fool you so well that you cannot tell it’s a machine or a real person, then the machine has passed the test.
Here he’s saying that a ‘super-intelligent machine’ being capable of pursuing a meaningful goal is another proof of its real intelligence. That’s incorrect even if it were possible get a machine participate in the richness of mind. We don’t yet even understand the processes in which we organically set and arrive at goals with, but we are going to have a machine do this?
@09:39“Suppose we give an AI the goal to make humans smile. When the AI is weak, it performs useful or amusing actions that cause its user to smile. When the AI becomes super-intelligent it realizes there is a more effective way to achieve this goal.” Ah… excuse me, but if we’re speaking of intelligence then we don’t have users, do we? We don’t if their intelligence is anything like our own.
He differentiates between strong and weak AI to underscore that ‘super-intelligence’ implies sentience. We don’t yet know how a dominant monad (‘I’-ness) works inside of us organically, not to mention how to impart this quality to a machine. I suppose, like all good materialists, we’ll just create enough initial conditions which then will become complex enough that sophonce spontaneously generates itself? (sophonce: self-awareness, including self-reflection and the ability to think about one’s thinking)
@09:43“Take control of the world and like stick electrodes into the facial muscles of humans…” Isn’t that sweet? That’s not intelligence, it’s stupidity, and a callous lack of regard for human dignity.
We knew that at least some mechanism of fear and control is going to be involved here (just having banksters fund the work presumes that ‘cocktail’ in the mix). But here is another example of the disparity made evident when such a thing could be made possible. We have received inverted and perverted priorities from those who fund our science and finance the development of our technology, and control the education of our young.
Do you see how easy it is for him to imagine such a scenario. See how the audience is not appalled at such an outcome? Neither the speaker nor the audience seems aware of how wrong this picture is.
The need to dominate and subjugate, which funds our science, pays for our technology and directs our education is even weaving itself into them: thereby infecting the young minds being exposed to it.
We must wake up and stop this perversion of our science and technology. If we do science or create technology with no concern for our values and ethics, then we are going to arrive at fundamental choices too early in our evolution and make the wrong choices on how they are put to use.
@10:02“Take another example. Let’s suppose we give AI the goal to solve a difficult mathematical problem. When the AI becomes super-intelligent, it realizes that the most effective way is to get the solution to this problem by transforming the planet into a giant computer so as to increase its thinking capacity.” Does that sound intelligent to you? I’m well aware of where this is heading, because of what has come before. We shall see what he proposes to solve his scenario’s ‘conundrum’. He’s simply giving us examples of what could be from his own imagination, but this reveals his own inner thoughts, feelings, priorities, and… training.
@10:17“And notice that this gives the AI an instrumental reason to do things to us that we might not approve of. Human beings in this model are a threat. We could prevent the mathematical problem from being solved.” If we could, why would we create an AI that would do such a thing? Mistakes happen? No! If an AI is really intelligent, it would also know of the consequences of its actions at the latest, during its execution of them.
Now we get to the main reason for the talk.
[To be continued in my next post with the same title.]