''...the implication for active consciousness suggests that there is a way for developing Strong AI.''
Article New insights into holonomic brain theory: implications for a...
Our new holonomic brain theory stands for the triumph of scientific pursuit and the emancipation of Man from mysticism. We are neither computer scientists nor psychologists. We initiated the discovery of the mechanism of consciousness and its overall postulation as a viable theory, based on a spark initiated by Neurologist Karl Pribram in the 1990s that was neglected over decades. It has now become a flame!
In the above paper, we have explained using quantum analogs to approximate the quantum realm through quantum statistical thermodynamics leading to statistical thermodynamics. There is no need for classical analogs or full QM approaches, which results in statistical ''washout''. We have solved this problem and laid the groundwork for active consciousness in the brains of biological organisms.
The theory puts to rest the century-old dogma about qualia, subject experience, and cognition as the natural oasis of consciousness and that its mechanism relies on quantum information or quantum mechanics (QM)
Of course, we have ruled out ITT for other reasons that no meaning comes out from integrated information but only limited semantics, insufficient to solve the Halting problem, for example.
In other words, meaning is precognitive, subjective functioning without the need for a homunculus argument.
As for proto-"consciousness or proto-feelings". There is nothing sublime about our conceptualization of physical feelings. Consciousness is a process where the Leibnizian informational structure is created based on non-felt feelings, which we called physical feelings.
As well, PanMat deals in quantum statistical thermodynamics, quantum chemistry, and quantum potential chemistry but not traditional QM. This is supported by the words of Francis Crick who said:
“…We all know that quantum mechanics is the basis of chemistry, so no one can say that quantum mechanics is not important. But what people are trying to say is that there is something more than chemistry involved. And I can’t see that they have any grounds for that yet. Because they have not shown even in outline, not even as a sketch, what mysteries of the brain’s function would be explained if something of this type did take place. So I am very skeptical of it.” Crick (1994)"
The idea Eda that consciousness comes through quantum profiling is one I visited years ago, but one that seemed sound to me. The strange nature of consciousness and the possibility that it is a force or aligned to forces is a seductive one. Consciousness seems mainly to be understood via the individual rather than its occupation in time, space and outside of the individual.
Stanley Wilkin Negentropic entanglement to be more precise. I agree that this is not pure information since it does not exist. We know that energy and information-based action are intertwined in panexperiential materialism through negentropic entanglement. However, we find active consciousness in the brain that rules out the possibility of universal consciousness at the quantum scale. that is why we have eliminated two earlier theories :integrated information (IIT) and Orch -Or.
Some negative views from People:
“A theory that places consciousness outside of God is wrong….”
“Consciousness is not a thing that must be conquered.”
“The theory is based on quantum analogy when good science, e.g., the standard model, doesn’t work on analogical assumptions.”
“But you haven’t solved the problem of consciousness. It’s another sandbox attempt, and you are fooling yourself with entrepreneurial hubris.”
“…the reason people find your attempt to demystify science to defrock conscious experience a betrayal.”
“Panexperiential materialism is a philosophical Frankenstein.”
“Panexperiential Materialism is not materialism because it assumes that the brain is not inert matter, i.e., it is NOT consciousless matter.”
Many people take Planck’s dictum to their hearts. The humble philosopher John Searle’s notion of consciousness as a biological phenomenon, like digestion, puts consciousness within our reach. That was the driving force when we considered the new holonomic brain theory, in which consciousness has no substrate but a substrate from which consciousness evolves. Otherwise, it would mean the existence of consciousness as a thing with pure spiritual consciousness.
On a positive note from a distinguished physicist:
“…there has been an incredible mass of destructive neurotic fuzzy thinking about consciousness, and the primary DENOTATION Of the phrase "demystifying consciousness" is a positive goal I agree with.” Paul W.
After centuries of debating finally, a theory has been developed that we call the holonomic brain theory or non-integrated information theory of consciousness. Its ontological basis is panexperiential materialism (PanMat) published in 2020 Advances in quantum Chemistry.
Eda, I am not a mathematician thereby my view may not completely coincide with yours at all points. Interested in how you can be sure that consciousness is evident in the brain or found there, as although activity exits within the brain and activity beyond it, conceding that there is not more involved is another matter.
It seems to me a great deal of the arguments correspond to some degree to 18th century concerns with god and human perception, actions can be seen as corresponding to a heavenly phenomenon heard or unheard, and that the mechanism for a phenomenon being known can be conceived as both within and without the nature of the phenomenon.
Stanley Wilkin Thank you for such an informative response. I am not a mathematician but a neurology medical researcher. My co-authors are distinguished mathematicians and quantum chemists, including an Israeli top neurologist.
We developed a theory that implicates consciousness to be an active process in the brain and not a passive process which would suggest that consciousness is universal in the cosmos, for example. So we have to rule out this possibility. That is why our work is objected to by many who see God and metaphysics as the oasis of consciousness. We see it differently based on sound theoretical prudence and not just epistemology.
We are planning to prepare an overview of the theory for a broader audience in the next few weeks. Stay tuned.
Eda, I write on medicine but also on the nature of perception within philosophy and psychiatry and I'm afraid worry about the latter's overall claims.
I am unfortunately not up on some of your references so may need to update myself.
"In other words, meaning is precognitive, subjective functioning."
Impossible. Perhaps you are using terms unusually.
"without the need for a homunculus argument."
Yes.
"Consciousness is a process where the Leibnizian informational structure is created based on non-felt feelings, which we called physical feelings."
This is actually basically right.
"PanMat deals in quantum statistical thermodynamics..."
Last I heard PanMat is a philosophy (which I share).
"Negentropic entanglement"
This needs to be explained in one paragraph readily understandable in broad terms by most scientists.
"We know that energy and information-based action are intertwined"
Yes. The energy includes feeling.
"However, we find active consciousness in the brain that rules out the possibility of universal consciousness at the quantum scale"
How so? IIT is baloney until feeling is added credibly. Orch-OR direction as toast is a bigger claim.
Eda Alemdar
"consciousness has no substrate but a substrate from which consciousness evolves."
False for fundamental consciousness, which is feeling; true if consciousness includes the cognitive (information processing).
"Otherwise, it would mean the existence of consciousness as a thing with pure spiritual consciousness."
Fundamental consciousness exists, as pure feeling. Disembodied minds do not (in our piece of the universe). Spirituality has nothing to do with it.
"We developed a theory that implicates consciousness to be an active process in the brain and not a passive process which would suggest that consciousness is universal in the cosmos, for example. So we have to rule out this possibility. That is why our work is objected to by many who see God and metaphysics as the oasis of consciousness. We see it differently based on sound theoretical prudence and not just epistemology."
Fundamental consciousness is universal in the cosmos. Has nothing to do with God. What do you mean here by is an active process vs is a passive process. It is simply a process.
Karl Sipfle
Thank you for your replies.
All I can say is that our theory represents a paradigm change because it eliminates worthless frameworks associated with metaphysical handwaving, but what is more impressive it goes against IIT, ORCH OR, and Workspace for clear reasons.
1. non-integrated information.---> refutes IIT
2. Quantum "washout" resulting in nonBohmian Q---> Refutes ORCH OR
3. Consciousness intrinsic to affect not cognition. aka "conscious cognition"
---> Refutes Worskpsce.
As for your second question, "active" means it evolves from Within (aka Pribram's memoirs in his last book) the brain. It rules out the notion of consciousness as a passive player coming in from the cosmos and taking a ride in the brain, say piggyback ride
Karl Sipfle
In the next couple of weeks, we will explain everything about negentropic entanglement, how it works via the fluctuation theorem, and link it to our definition of consciousness etc
We feel we are at the pinnacle of solving a problem similar to Copernicus.
See our Twitter account on @neuralpress
Jan Holmgren
Francisco Di biase
Erkki J. Brändas
Jaime F Cárdenas-García
P. Lopez
Karl Sipfle thank you for the excellent insights Words have meaning, not to say meanings. It is particularly true when they are used in Scientific Fields where semantics, by the "Scientific Definition", Takes All Its Sense. By formalizing these concepts, the use-based theories of meaning provide an epistemological framework that is fundamental to know through all stakeholders in any scientific debate. There is a reason: Semantics in scientific discourse, by definition rigorous, cannot suffer any blurring.
Eda Alemdar wrote "..and link it to our definition of consciousness" Difficult to admit that in the scientific field, one can evoke: my definition, your definition, its definition, our definition, your definition, and their definition. From the point of view of scientific rigor, a definition is by definition unique, the same for all scientists.
This is a review of recent research related to definitions and approaches of consciousness: Sattin, Davide, et al. "Theoretical models of consciousness: a scoping review." Brain Sciences 11.5 (2021): 535. "..Among the 1130 articles assessed, 85 full texts were included in the prefinal step. Finally, this scoping review analyzed 68 articles that described 29 theories of consciousness..." Available on: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3425/11/5/535/pdf
Abstract
The amount of knowledge on human consciousness has created a multitude of viewpoints and it is difficult to compare and synthesize all the recent scientific perspectives. Indeed, there are many definitions of consciousness and multiple approaches to study the neural correlates of consciousness (NCC). Therefore, the main aim of this article is to collect data on the various theories of consciousness published between 2007–2017 and to synthesize them to provide a general overview of this topic. To describe each theory, we developed a thematic grid called the dimensional model, which qualitatively and quantitatively analyzes how each article, related to one specific theory, debates/analyzes a specific issue. Among the 1130 articles assessed, 85 full texts were included in the prefinal step. Finally, this scoping review analyzed 68 articles that described 29 theories of consciousness. We found heterogeneous perspectives in the theories analyzed. Those with the highest grade of variability are as follows: subjectivity, NCC, and the consciousness/cognitive function. Among sub-cortical structures, thalamus, basal ganglia, and the hippocampus were the most indicated, whereas the cingulate, prefrontal, and temporal areas were the most reported for cortical ones also including the thalamo-cortical system. Moreover, we found several definitions of consciousness and 21 new sub-classifications.
Hi Jamel Chahed your replies lack rigor, Sorry I can't reply to them as there is nothing to reply to.
Karl Sipfle
Erkki J. Brändas
"The act of understanding uncertainty is consciousness"®
I will explain terms like "understanding" and uncertainty" later.
See Twitter account @neuralpress (we may not be using RG )
Ps. Uncertainty is resolved by contextual information. At that stage, consciousness ends and memory starts.
Eda Alemdar Anyway, thank you for the reply. Please let me mention that Twitter is a Social Media and, as such, lacks scientific rigor and cannot be considered a scholarly information source, at least for me. Sorry, I can't consult them as there is nothing academic to consult.
Eda Alemdar wrote "The act of understanding uncertainty is consciousness" I have another proposition of consciousness definition: "The act of understanding himself is consciousness". So we have two propositions:
Proposition 1: "The act of understanding uncertainty is consciousness"
Proposition 2: "The act of understanding himself is consciousness"
It follows that himself=uncertainty
From the point of view of scientific rigor, a definition is by definition unique, the same for all scientists.
I rest my case
Jamel Chahed
There is no scientific rigor on RG. It is a social outlet just as much as Twitter. If you were a real scientist then you would check anything to satisfy your hunger would you not? I rest my case. By the way, you are deviating from the rigor of the discussion. If you have nothing to add please go away by posting in the less rigorous thread.
Eda Alemdar wrote "There is no scientific rigor on RG. It is a social outlet just as much as Twitter" No offense and with all due respect, RG means ResearchGate: not only it is a question of scientific rigor, but of methodological principles, of scientific rigor, that of Science, and of academic ethics, that of research. More specifically, RG members are accountable and they have responsibilities, in particular, vis-à-vis young researchers and students on RG in promoting scientific rigor and integrity.
"If you have nothing to add please go away by posting in the less rigorous thread". It is deplorable to note that some of the RG members who create threads on RG seem to give themselves the right to control what is written and tend to react vigorously, sometimes allowing themselves to be, at best moderators, at worst givers of lessons or temple guardians. But OK! We must not give in and work for a rational, free, and independent scientific expression on Scientific Threads.
PS: Academic freedom is a human rights principle. By definition, scientific discussion threads on RG are free to access and open to free interpretation and expression within rigorous scientific discourse. Luckily, that's how it is; otherwise, it would be an annoying imposture!
Jamel Chahed You don't know what you are saying. What if someone protected YOUR Rights and interests and was removed from RG? Do not judge.
Eda Alemdar wrote, "You don't know what you are saying" Thank you for your Kind Words. EA wrote, "What if someone protected YOUR Rights and interests and was removed from RG?" Don't worry. I know my Rights and I don't need anyone to protect them. I also know my Duties, I assume them, and I don't need anyone to remind me of them. The contract on RG is inscribed in the RG User-Obligations terms of service
https://www.researchgate.net/terms-of-service#User-Obligations.
Just stick to them, and all will be fine.
Jamel Chahed Your last posts "polluted" the discourse tremendously. We are talking about discovery and you are giving us school lessons on how to behave. You are inappropriately styled to world-class research and that is why there is no real rigor on RG. IF you want to learn Science go to Twitter.
@neuralpress
Eda Alemdar Wrote "Your last posts "polluted" the discourse tremendously ... and you are giving us school lessons on how to behave" Thank you for your kind words. I have no regard for lesson givers and I agree with Gilles Deleuze, (French philosopher, died in 1992) when he says: "The more one has made a mistake in one's life, the more lessons one gives" (Own translation from French ). I don't have any esteem for order givers either. EA wrote, "IF you want to learn Science go to Twitter". Thank you for this great advice. I will remember this every time I want to learn Science. In the meantime, I think there's still a lot of work to be done for even a semblance of scientific ethics on RG. And I'll try to put some effort into it, no offense to those who don't care.
Dear Jamel Chaced;
ResearchGate: A European-based commercial social networking site for scientists and researchers to share their articles, ask questions, answer questions and find collaborators.
Twitter: A European-based social networking site for researchers to share their articles, ask and answer questions, and find collaborators. Scientists actively use both social networking sites. Here they publish their work. There is no difference between the two.A scientist should follow the developments and the agenda very closely, because the technological age we live in is constantly developing and "KNOWLEDGE" is constantly renewed together with this development.
''Finally, we developed a theory.'' If you have any work please share.Otherwise, you'll get nowhere by insulting.
''It doesn't matter whether you respect me or not, I take this with great generosity''.
Best Regard
Eda Alemdar Wrote "If you have any work please share. Otherwise, you'll get nowhere by insulting". With all due respect, I protest: I expressly ask you to show me where it is that I uttered insults. Otherwise, I would respectfully request that you withdraw your inappropriate remark.
Dear Jamel Chaced ;
I suggest you read your previous posts carefully!
Best Regard
Eda Alemdar wrote, "I suggest you read your previous posts carefully!" I did. No insult! I expressly ask you to show me where it is that I uttered insults: Just copy and paste, please. Otherwise, I would respectfully request that you withdraw your inappropriate remark.
In today's world, with the abundance of information available online, it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that all sources of information are created equal. However, it is important to exercise discernment and critically evaluate the sources of information we use to obtain knowledge.
While platforms like Twitter and ResearchGate can be valuable sources of information, it is crucial to recognize their limitations and potential biases. By being open to a variety of sources and taking a critical approach to the information we encounter, we can develop a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of the world around us.
In conclusion, while the ability to seek out knowledge is important, it is equally important to exercise discernment in evaluating the sources of information we use. By doing so, we can ensure that we are obtaining the most accurate and comprehensive understanding possible, regardless of the platform or source from which we obtain it.
Some Invectives from Eda Alemdar towards me: ...your replies lack rigor, Sorry I can't reply to them as there is nothing to reply to...By the way, you are deviating from the rigor of the discussion. If you have nothing to add please go away by posting in the less rigorous thread....You don't know what you are saying...Your last posts "polluted" the discourse tremendously. ...you are giving us school lessons on how to behave. You are inappropriately styled to world-class research.... IF you want to learn Science go to Twitter... you'll get nowhere by insulting.
Thank you for your kind words, and I still waiting for you to show me where it is that I uttered insults: Just copy and paste, please.
Ms. Eda, you asked a very meaningful question. As a theologian, I would like to approach this question from a different perspective. I believe that God created the Universe in a mathematical order, and based on this, I think that consciousness can be calculated mathematically. The solution to this is in Quantum Physics.
We need interdisciplinary perspectives on this issue.
Best Regards
Prof. Dr. Ramazan Bicer
Ramazan Bicer Thank you for these thoughts. Could you please explain what you mean by "mathematical order"? Thank you in advance
Dr. Bicer, Ultimately it can be *described* mathematically. Math records patterns of things. A mathematically equivalent simulation is not sufficient however to provide feeling.
Dear Karl,
Allow me to answer the question you posed for Prof Dr. Bicer. Are we talking about physical feelings that are not felt?
We included implicitly a mathematical algorithm to decode the consciousness code that harnesses these physical feelings (noncontextual) in the paper attached to the thread.
It fits in well with our definition of consciousness See
Book The act of understanding uncertainty is consciousness (This ...
Once uncertainty is resolved by contextual information, consciousness no longer acts.
Jan Holmgren
Eda Alemdar Wrote "It fits in well with our definition of consciousness" Difficult to admit that in the scientific field, one can evoke: my definition, your definition, its definition, our definition, your definition, and their definition. From the point of view of scientific rigor, a definition is by definition unique, the same for all scientists. If we do not have a single definition, we have several. How much? from 2 to N. N being the number of beings endowed with consciousness.
This is a review of recent research related to definitions and approaches of consciousness: Sattin, Davide, et al. "Theoretical models of consciousness: a scoping review." Brain Sciences 11.5 (2021): 535. "..Among the 1130 articles assessed, 85 full texts were included in the prefinal step. Finally, this scoping review analyzed 68 articles that described 29 theories of consciousness..." Available on: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3425/11/5/535/pdf
Abstract
The amount of knowledge on human consciousness has created a multitude of viewpoints and it is difficult to compare and synthesize all the recent scientific perspectives. Indeed, there are many definitions of consciousness and multiple approaches to study the neural correlates of consciousness (NCC). Therefore, the main aim of this article is to collect data on the various theories of consciousness published between 2007–2017 and to synthesize them to provide a general overview of this topic. To describe each theory, we developed a thematic grid called the dimensional model, which qualitatively and quantitatively analyzes how each article, related to one specific theory, debates/analyzes a specific issue. Among the 1130 articles assessed, 85 full texts were included in the prefinal step. Finally, this scoping review analyzed 68 articles that described 29 theories of consciousness. We found heterogeneous perspectives in the theories analyzed. Those with the highest grade of variability are as follows: subjectivity, NCC, and the consciousness/cognitive function. Among sub-cortical structures, thalamus, basal ganglia, and the hippocampus were the most indicated, whereas the cingulate, prefrontal, and temporal areas were the most reported for cortical ones also including the thalamo-cortical system. Moreover, we found several definitions of consciousness and 21 new sub-classifications.
R.R Poznansky
With all due respect to you and to Eda Alemdar, I don't think anyone, and scientists even more, need to be spoken for them. That said, I have no problem, on the contrary, I have nothing but honor and great pleasure of addressing you very respectfully: It is difficult to admit that in the scientific field, one can evoke: my definition, your definition, its definition, our definition, your definition, and their definition. From the point of view of scientific rigor, a definition is by definition unique, the same for all scientists. The reason is simple: If we do not have a single definition, we have several and as many dictionaries. How much? from 2 to N. N being the number of beings endowed with consciousness.
R.R Poznansky
wrote "If you have problems talk to me. Now go away if you have nothing to add to this thread." Thank you for your kindness and for your kind words. It is deplorable that some RG members allow themselves to decreet who should be in or out of any RG Discussion Thread. The reason is simple: by definition, scientific discussion threads on RG are free to access and open to free interpretation and expression within rigorous scientific discourse. Luckily, that's how it is; otherwise, it would be an annoying imposture!The contract on RG is inscribed in the RG User-Obligations terms of service
https://www.researchgate.net/terms-of-service#User-Obligations.
So please, just stick to them, and all will be fine.
Jamel Chahed FYI a site with much higher quality average participation and discourse is the US-based Academia.edu. I have some papers posted and a number of readers there. It is not free but not very expensive. However, it has a focus on papers and their review and is missing the conversational aspect of this site, which is a strong point here.
Karl Sipfle Thank you for the advice. As for this discussion thread, I found no indication related to its conversational or academic nature. The reason is simple as, by definition, scientific discussion threads on RG are free to access and open to free interpretation and expression within rigorous scientific discourse. Luckily, that's how it is; otherwise, it would be an annoying imposture!
The contract on RG is inscribed in the RG User-Obligations terms of service
https://www.researchgate.net/terms-of-service#User-Obligation
That each contributor sticks to it
R.R. Poznansky
wrote "Scientists need freedom without constraints" Scientists need freedom of course. Academic Freedom is one of the scholar's fundamental principles. However, there are constraints, those of Scientific Integrity, Research Ethics, and Higher Education Deontology. That each contributor sticks to them! and all would be fine.PS: I don't understand which "despotic way to operate" you are talking about. Whose one?
@RR so you say
AC -> Affect -> PC -> affects cognition
What is AC? These are the "unfelt feelings?"
I say
Feeling -> affects cognition
@RR I have an important suggestion suggestion for a short paper. This one should only
1. Start with one sentence of A and B yields C which yields D etc which contains in order the complete chain according to your theory.
2. Define all nonobvious terms (non circularly) in the sentence. Then proceed top-down, depth-first defining each nonobvious term in each definition, using a sentence not a paragraph, until all that remains are obvious terms, the ones almost everyone interprets the same way.
Maintain that order. Then the paper ends, with further discussion in the references.
Otherwise you have mush with too much going on at the same time and too vague to follow.
This way you only need to present once instead of 1000 times, and the individual points of interest to someone can be discussed much more efficiently. It also then allows a reader to reconstruct from the bottom up.
R.R. Poznansky
Eda Alemdar You are producing distractions here, not making visible sharable science.Karl Sipfle has the right idea for you , follow that guide or continue to flounder in your self-entangled mess.
People who oppose every new idea realize years later that the idea is an invention. Some people do not live to see this invention. History is full of examples of this.
R.R. Poznansky
Eda AlemdarI actually had masters level courses in Neuroscience brain and behaviour and have followed the new findings and the trends (and I can easily evaluate that you are entangled in one of the minor trends which you wish meant something but clearly does not - as you cannot explain it or provide working models at any level).
if you are happy with your personal insult repertoire, by all means attempt to discredit my comments. We all know that you have quit and been kicked out of here for insults and degraded behaviours.
Obviously you have no idea of what my work is and are relating it to nodes and spiking. Basically yours is a lazy repackaging of insults . like everything else you do - Matroishka. toys faking it with bravado. I hear a lot about your obsession with wikepedia, and I can see that you are not in it, which probably means you are not nearly as important and you suggest, without any evidenced or real credit.
Either you cannot read English, or you are too lazy to click this link.
https://jerrywaese.github.io/perception/
I have heard no comment from you or Eda about it,
''Jeryy, said: He likes new ideas''. Dear Jeryy, that's really admirable. You are challenging us in an area where you are not an expert. If you have a special interest in this field, do not be discouraged, we are giving you a brand new idea. Take this idea and develop it. Let's see you too. Otherwise, if we turn our heads at every new idea, if we turn our noses up, How can we advance science?
Dear Jerry Waese: You are taking graduate level courses. "For a certain time." If everything about Neuroscience is understood in such a short time, have we studied all these years for nothing? We are not insulting you. Nobody was fired. Look, Dear Mirzakhmet Syzdykov, he asked you a very good question: What solution do you propose?
R.R. Poznansky
you have still not looked at thishttps://jerrywaese.github.io/perception/ which I would direct Mirzakhmet Syzdykov
to explore, and which does not implement whatR.R. Poznansky
presumes to be a java implementation of nodes at all.I have written a browser in nodes and an interpreter using nodes and that is not what I have done in this web page demo
https://jerrywaese.github.io/perception/
which demonstrates how the totality of a pattern is stored in a distributed fashion by the linkages created during synchronous activation.
AND
which in the same function demonstrates how perception occurs which can progressively access the total pattern from a small sample or trigger which is what is seen in real life.
this unique neural network is modeled on actual neural arrangements in the brain and it illustrates realistically how our mind works .
if you go to https://jerrywaese.github.io/perception/
you can see all the code, no additional libraries are required, and you can modify it using the built in browser debuggers and memory viewers to see variable values of interest.
this is not Java, but Ecma or JavaScript and is highly accessible and realistic.
Eda Alemdar The graduate courses that were offered to me were because I got the highest marks in Organic Chemistry and Molecular Biology in the school. I was not impressed at the work being done at the time and am not impressed with yours either.
I am not of the right mentality to put up with the politics of Academia, but I am enthralled with real science. Nobody knows how long they will live, but it is a bit unintelligent to bring up my life span in your support of R.R. Poznansky
's idiotic insults among these discussions. what has it to do with anything?
According to the ancient Greek logicians, "sophistry" means shifting the discussion away from the issues and onto personalities. As we are within a discussion on conscience and mathematics and far from any "sophistry", one may meditate on this magnific citation by Francis Bacon (Philosopher, Scientist 1561-1626) "If a man's mind wanders, make him study mathematics because in demonstrations, as long as he deviates, he will be obliged to start again" (Own translation from French).
Dear Jeryy, I'm tired of hearing the same thing over and over for days. You keep saying we insulted you. Could you please go back and take a look at what you wrote to us? I am witnessing a situation that I have never witnessed in my life. Do you sit and check who likes and dislikes Roman Poznansky's comments. Do you really have that much free time?
You insult our work. Believe me, I'm not angry with you at all. We have a beautiful saying, "The tree that bears fruit is stoned". So we are on the right track and you are proving to us that we are on the right track.I thank you wholeheartedly for this.
I wish you good luck in doing real science.
Mirzakhmet Syzdykov
wrote, "What I think is that the psychological model of AI is to be a model as well." Comments: First part of the sentence: "I think is that the psychological model of AI.." If I understand correctly, we are talking about the psychological model of AI. The psychological model of AI is a "model". I don't see any other explanation except "a psychological model of AI". Second part of the sentence: "...is to be a model as well". Either there is something that escapes my understanding, or this sentence can be reduced to: "Model is to be Model". Now, what if we replaced "Model" with "X"? It comes: X is to be X. And it works! what could be more logical?
Jamel Chaded
Bacon believed that mathematics provided a powerful language for expressing scientific ideas, and he advocated for the use of mathematical reasoning in all areas of scientific inquiry. Yes, mathematics may be the most powerful tool we have to understand nature, but there is still no answer to the question of 1/0 in mathematics.
Mirzakhmet Syzdykov
I don't quite see the connection, but OK, I agree "cognitive functions of AI are missing". The problem is that (at least currently) we do not have at our disposal technologies capable of implementing "Cognitive function" in AI. The technologies we have include machine learning, deep learning, NLP, neural networks, etc. But, as shown for instance, in this paper [1], all recent progresses in these topics is essentially based "on a “big data for small tasks” paradigm, under which massive amounts of data are used to train a classifier for a single narrow task". The authors come to the conclusion that the current big data-based models "do not acquire mathematical reasoning abilities after learning". So to say that we are still far from the beginning of what you call "cognitive functions of AI"[1] Zhu, Y., Gao, T., Fan, L., Huang, S., Edmonds, M., Liu, H., ... & Zhu, S. C. (2020). Dark, beyond deep: A paradigm shift to cognitive ai with humanlike common sense. Engineering, 6(3), 310-345.
Available on:
Article Dark, Beyond Deep: A Paradigm Shift to Cognitive AI with Hum...
In case anyone is interested, we have already achieved the intelligence of reptiles and lower mammals in autonomous vehicles aka robotic cars. I've worked on almost everything from land autonomy to deep space autonomy; land is the hardest. These things perceive, predict, plan, and react to surprises in real time.
This is not human-level, but it is already embodied AI equivalent to specialist animal species preceding us.
Karl Sipfle Thank you for the insights. Could you please provide us with related references? Thank you in advance
Mathematics is the foundation of computer programming, but it is not the foundation of consciousness, however both living and conscious systems can be modeled using mathematics in a functional context like a computer program with a display and some input.
Mesut Tez you wrote:
- Jerry Waese, thank you for demo, I'm sure we're step ahead in deciding if the modelled senses can be true as a dual stochastic model in general.
My guess is that you think what I am modeling is vision in some obscure way and not discussing it.
While it is true that this demo displays the loading of images (a visual input correlate to vision as a sense) and the association of all the activated pixels as a memory engram, it could be all senses that are represented, one in each corner of the incoming pattern shown on the upper left.
The right side is the simulation of cortical neurons in a 2 dimensional sheet - more or less what our cortex is, a 10 sq meter sheet crumpled and folded into our skulls.
What is demonstrated is that when you click on a sample at the left side indicating some new sensory input, the right side simulates the activity in the cortex - and reactivates what it perceives the sample to be part of, using associative reactivation of the links that were made initially.
If you change the image it learns that and you can experiment how samples produce results. Samples with little content or differentiation do not have high results for perceptive recall.
I discuss this kind of thing with anyone who is interested. this document
Experiment Findings Perception Variance Analysis by increasing Associative Pyram...
describes one explanation related to how some people have more genetic connectivity potential in their brains.the basic theory is in this paper:
Preprint Associative Memory Formation and Perception A Consideration ...
It was a specific result addressing a question from another Research gate member.
Much of the JavaScript demo was written because of other conversations I was having with RG members.
The attached image shows the functional relationships of the anatomy of the nervous system in this model.
Jamel Chahed One way you can find a lot of very detailed information is to search web on phrases like "Baidu autonomous." Historical beginnings and forward can be found with "DARPA Grand Challenge." I'm happy to say I created and demonstrated a complete AV demonstrator for Hewlett Packard years before these DARPA events. More recently I headed the autonomy architecture group for US lunar space station that is being built now and will be launched in a couple of years and visited by Artemis IV. This information is more controlled, however.
Jamel Chahed
what Karl Sipfle is indicating is that a self driving car is already an functional implementation of an artificial intelligence which can be encountered most days on the street in reality.
Does he need to quote references to support the de facto reality?
It does not necessarily relate to modeling consciousness, nor does any AI project to date produce consciousness in the same way that life does,
however, Navigation to familiar environs is, in my proposition, the evolutionary advantage of consciousness to motile animals beginning with the worms 500 million years ago.
What is missing in the current approach to the consciousness field (again in my opinion) is the notion of familiarity - that element along with the notion of strange or unfamiliar is the basis of all things conscious.
SAE Levels of Autonomy
L5 Fully autonomous in unknown environments
L4 Fully autonomous in known environments
See also
Article Distinct Kinds of "Consciousness": Human, Artificial, and Simulated
Mesut Tez wrote, "Yes, mathematics may be the most powerful tool we have to understand nature, but there is still no answer to the question of 1/0 in mathematics". The first part of the sentence is obvious the last part is less. However, it describes, in mathematical words, an asymptotic meaning. Let's
Consider for example the following problem: We all know that "zero risk does not exist" Let R be an evaluation of Risk and P an evaluation of Protection measures, both of which are strictly greater than zero. For instance, R=0 does not exist and P=0 does not interest us (protection measures are not defined).
Calculate the R/P ratio. it is equal to 1 when P=R.
now consider the asymptotic situations where P or R tend to zero
P->0 and R positive finite value: R/P->R/0; the risk is infinite with respect to protective measures. Extremely (infinitely) dangerous situation
P positive finite value and R->0: R/P->0/1=0; the risk is almost zero with respect to protective measures. Extremely (infinitely) expensive situation.
Note that R=0 (zero risk which does not exist) leads to P=0 and provides an indeterminate mathematical form (0/0).
Jerry Waese wrote "Does he need to quote references to support the de facto reality?" I asked kindly for a piece of scientific information because I do want to learn. Don't you?
Your answer is somewhat strange. It is like: Could you help me understand why can birds fly?; and how they can? Answer: Of course, see they are flying.
Thank you anyway for the reply
I agree, it was strange, although, the domain of autonomous vehicles is mostly proprietary, and the conversation flow was more pedestrian at that point, if you know what I mean.
but you have every right to ask your question. Jamel Chahed
Jamel Chaded
You didn't answer my question, or you answered it but I didn't understand. From what I understand, you're saying that the result of the operation 1/0 is either infinity or undefined! So, what now?
Firstly
1/0 = infinity.
0 X infinity=1
Is it true? Nothing comes from nothing (Greek: οὐδὲν ἐξ οὐδενός; Latin: ex nihilo nihil fit) is a philosophical dictum argued by Parmenides. Now, we say infinity comes from nothing.
Secondly
I gave you three specific concepts (0,1, and division operation) and you inferred uncertainty from them. How did you do that?
What would artificial intelligence say about this?
Mesut Tez wrote: 1/0 = infinity -> 0 X infinity=1 This is mathematically incorrect
0x1/0=0/0 is an undetermined Mathematical form. The same goes for infinity/infinity
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Force