[Fis] Natural intelligence

Karl Javorszky karl.javorszky at gmail.com
Fri Nov 23 19:33:19 CET 2018


Dear Bruno,



Thank you for illuminating the subject of differences between a
biochemically and an electrically powered problem-solving device. The frog
catching flies and the anti-ballistic drone shooting down missiles use the
same principles of spatial geometry and calculations of paths and
velocities. The difference I was trying to point out regards the noise
within the processing module. In the synchronised environment, noise is not
necessary and is regarded rather a nuisance. The machine can afford to be
against noise, as in the time slices with no action, there is no action. A
biologic mechanism cannot be synchronised to such a high degree, because
physiology happens in a system with very many, interacting elements, so
there is invariably a stochastic component to its normal running. One
cannot point out 1 cell having been flooded with nutrients discharging an
electrical impulse exactly *x *msec after a specific stimulus and *y *msec
after a different stimulus. This effect can happen only in groups, schools
(like of fish or birds) flocking, patterns. The main thought was that there
can be no rational concept for cause and effect in a multitude that cannot
be synchronised (where there is no external clock). No cause and effect:
only implications and predictions remain.



The discharge pattern is the feedback loop of the cybernetic
self-regulating cycle. We have learnt the auto-regulating loop of the
heating and the thermostat. The click of the thermostat is comparable to
the discharge of the nervous cell, both signal the non-continuable state of
what is the case and cause a discontinuity, disruption of an established
flow of that what is the case. The continuation is insupportable after
having reached a threshold. In the thermostat, the sensor and the heating
element are separate. In a brain, we have to arrive at a concept that the
heater melts down, goes up in a puff, discharges, and the void of a heater
is concurrently the first segment of a cycle in which heating begins, a
heater is re-assembled. The breakdown in the state of the neuron, which to
us appears as an electrical discharge, is not a bug, but rather it is a
feature.

One single neuron does not a thought make. There must be at least a few
dozen of them for an observer to be able to distinguish between normal,
usual discharge patterns and such patterns that are systematically
deviating from the most probable varieties. The neurons are the artists
among the information transmitters, and their usage of degrees of
brinkmanship to propagate status news by the predictable breakdown is a
mastery of destabilisation exercises of a system which we at first should
address on a much less ambitious level, namely on the level of the DNA.

May the neurons play with the dissonances that arrive at the interference
of some complicated rhythms, we wish at first to understand the basic
rhythm which runs well-constructed, predictably and in a stable fashion.

For any biologically sustainable interaction to take place, those whatevers
that interact, have to obey the spatial readings relating to *{(a+b,a),
(b-2a,a), (a-2b,b-2a); *[list incomplete]*}*. We cannot have a living cell
outside of realisable spatial coordinates. The assembly also profitably
uses the gravity axe *a+b* and may not be subjected to over-synchronising
of its constituents by external radiation.

Every element in every cycle has at all times a space-related reading also.
If the reading is valid, a coordinate in a 3D Descartes space is generated,
with axes as mentioned above. Valid is a reading if the carry of the
occupants of the places of the 3 planes that can be generated by using the
axes above pairwise, is *a=18, b=33 (at least?)*. This needs serious
attention by professional mathematicians. In the case of a valid
coordinate, the corresponding slice in space has to be assumed to have been
generated also. This gives an inroad to a very flexible concept of space.

For the genetic transmission of information, it is irrelevant, which
physio-chemical properties the tokens and elements have in “real life”. The
task was to build such a conceptual frame around observations that the
observations become intelligible. The model should depict 3 related
statements in a strict sequence so, that each one of the statements can
have one of 4 different forms, and this pairwise. Voilá, this task has been
solved, as a theoretical problem. It is logically possible for genetics to
exist, and we understand how to read the numbers to see it at work.

If one sorts and orders logical tokens, repeatedly, one will observe
patterns, generated by cycles. Some of the cycles generate 3D Descartes
spaces. In fact, there are two 3D Descartes spaces generated, of which the
relation seems to be reflecting on the inner connections between *(a,b)*.
The coordinate of a point in that space is read off from 3 planes. In the
simplest version, there is only one coordinate per plane plus the
almost-symmetrical mirror image in the alternate 3D space.

Merging the two Euclid spaces that have been generated by repeated
sequencings into one, common 3D, Newton space, which has not been generated
by sorting but by approximating and predicting, one finds 4 possible
readings in 6 planes of 1 coordinate. The readings of a coordinate are
among the properties of the coordinate, therefore the *value i (i: 1..6) *is
an implication of *element j (j: 1..4) *sitting on *place k (k: 1..3)*. The
meaning of *value i* can well be: “friends, now Order A is in force,
therefore the right places for elements are: ….”.

The narrative here is that a clean-up in the mental laboratory is needed.
We do away with straight lines and use loops only, with knots of different
kinds in them. The loops circle around the central element, of which there
are two. The central elements are each quite in the middle of a Euclid
space. Each of the spaces is made up by the incessant turning of “now” of
the planes front-back, left-right, up-down. The numbers lead one to believe
that we live in a world made up of two two-thirds of spaces that are as
interlinked as *(a,b)* can be, where the logical moment rides along time,
in space always performing a three-step slide from plane to plane. Our
nervous system has merged the two Euclid spaces of accounting reality into
one common Newton space of sensually experienced reality. Our everyday,
normal space appears to be zipped up from two two-thirds spaces.

The neurons may well utilise the additional artefact of two more planes
that also connect to the spatial grid, although only in the form of planes,
lacking a third common dimension, namely *{(a,b) vs. (b-a,b-2a); (a,a-2b)
vs. (b-a,a)}*. One would want to build a concept, in which no material
breakdown happens in the Euclid or Newton kinds of space, but the
irreconcibilities build up slowly but systematically on the planes of *{(b-a),
a}. *This would lead to a concept of down-in-the-world, where the elements
are where they are and do what they do, and of a world-in-the-clouds, where
for each state actualised in the world, there is an entry in a large book,
how much this fact – of the element being on place p – is deviating with
respect to its expected position on the planes built on *{(b-a), a}.* In
this model, the neuron does not suffer a breakdown in the realm of *(a+b)*,
but simply rebalances after a discharge of electricity, resetting the
differences on the level of *(b-a)* to their starting state.

The numbers deliver a skeleton. The schema – or syntax – of the standard
sentence consists of references to positions of element in linear
sequences. These translate into coordinates on planes. Twice three planes
can be assembled such, that two rectangular spaces exist. These can be
merged into one common space, in which some exactitude is lost, and
varieties can have place. The most elementary variety relates to which of
the four possible coordinates on each of the three planes is being
designated as the correct variety. This accounting exercise describes
nothing but space itself, and how it is built up from linear positions. In
actual fact, what gets ordered are physico-chemical assemblies of types of
logical artefacts. Logical artefacts are pileups in space, where there are
such concurrently running cycles, which generate more invalid spatial
coordinates than valid ones, therefore not enough space is generated for so
many cycles transversing the spatial coordinate. This appears to be a
complicated business and needs careful tabulating. On the other hand, to
build the Mendeleev table up from nothing else but by observing relations
among natural numbers is a fascinating task, and it appears that the task
can be done. We have to go very deep here in FIS. No Heinzelmaennchen in
sight yet, we have to do the job ourselves.

Am Mi., 21. Nov. 2018 um 12:48 Uhr schrieb Bruno Marchal <
bruno.marchal en ulb.ac.be>:

>
> On 4 Nov 2018, at 15:19, Karl Javorszky <karl.javorszky en gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Biochemically powered Wittgenstein machines
>
>
> We see animals and small children to be able to solve tasks that require
> intelligence. There exists the phenomenon of natural intelligence. We wish
> to compare and delineate the naturally intelligent problem-solving
> behaviour of organisms to concepts of evaluating logical facts and arriving
> at a result, like computers do.
>
>
> Computers do that when we use them for doing logic programming. But they
> can use genetic algorithm, or other methods. With a universal goal, like
> “help yourself”, they can do pretty everything partial computable, which is
> also partial not-computable in advance, and unpredictable in advance.
> I think that the difference between artificial and natural is artificial,
> and natural from the point of view of the ego, which is quite relative.
>
>
>
>
>
>    1. Similarities
>
> Both systems of registering and evaluating data can build an inner picture
> of a 3D space, establish the position of a target, predict the target’s
> path, using in the calculation the expected number of time ticks after
> launch until hit. Machines do this while hitting enemy drones, frogs do
> this while catching flies.
>
>    1. Differences
>
> The machine is electrically powered and possesses one main clock.
>
>
> OK. But then you compare nature only with very special machine. Babbage
> machine was not electrical, and without clock. All universal machine can
> simulate each other. In the digital frame, many clocks can be useful for
> having some computation A done in “real” time (“real” relatively to some
> other universal machine B), but the couple of computations A + B can be
> emulates by any universal machine or number in arithmetic.
>
>
>
>
> All the sub-calculations are in synchronicity with at least their
> surrounding sub-units, which then integrate in the whole system using 1
> (one) main tact-giver. The setting of switches (0,1) is in a strict
> sequence, which is ruled by forces outside of the switch. In an optimal
> version of the process, there is no noise, as there are no changes of
> switches generated that were out of synch, erroneously or spontaneously
> (pixel info turning up without the screen having been swept, e.g.).
> Decision is made by the central unit, on reports from local units, and is
> issued to other local units. Which reports of the local – perceiving –
> systems constitute a fulfilment of criteria “target” which fulfilment in
> turn will cause the release a sequence of decisions, is decided by the
> human designer of the system, an outside intelligence.
>
> The frog would show symptoms of epilepsy if its brain was subject to waves
> that are over-ubiquitous. In its normal functioning, the brain optimises in
> so much of de-synchronising on a global level as is possible under the
> needs of synchronising as many areas as are needed to solve a task. The
> general level of asynchronicity is what is the overall background of the
> processes in the brain of the frog while it targets the fly. What we
> advocate here, that it is the *kind of the noise* which carries
> information. There are very many kinds of noises, and – in the case of
> frogs – they are related to each other. Decision is not made by a central
> unit but the decision is the constellation of such causes that are in
> themselves a consequence.
>
> We know of such constellations of causes that are a consequence. Chemistry
> teaches us that if Material A is concurrently present with Material B,
> {heat, fire, bubbles, explosion, creation of Material C, …} will happen. In
> some specific cases, the consequence can be an electrical discharge. In an
> idealised picture, the effect of the lightning resulting from some
> magneto-chemical over-densities would be a reset of the original state,
> maybe allowing for a physiological recharge. The frequency, by which
> concurrent flooding of cells with 2 different nutrients creates
> insufferable conditions (non-continuable process, contradictory
> requirements), therefore a breakdown, which then is expressed by an
> electric discharge, is a description of the sequence of this cell’s states.
> If the discharge frequency agrees with frequencies of other cells, and
> pattern established, that pattern again is a constellation of causes that
> is a consequence (and the tongue is extended).
>
> The function of these cells cannot be synchronised from above. Any concept
> of synchronisation has to evolve from bottom up, at least on the level of
> frogs catching flies. It may remain open to debate, which of the ways of
> influencing the other constituent of the interaction electric-fluid one
> considers more telling: an enlightened Zen monk extinguishing the process
> of life within himself by willing himself dead, as is reported in several
> writings, or rather the everyday observation that intaking some fluids can
> make one alter one’s views on various matters. The main difference between
> the constituents of the interaction appears to be linear vs recurrent;
> these two aspects have to interact smoothly for the system to be
> functionable.
>
> I think that makes local sense. But that distinction is made automatically
> from the points of view of the relative computations as above. No doubt
> that human consciousness requires a long history among infinitely many
> computations (those accessing to our state). That makes sense for applying
> computations in the real world, but at the fundamental level, “the real
> world” is explained phenomenologically through the number relative
> computations statistics, as nature confirmed through quantum mechanics, at
> least until now.
> We agree, I think, but you argument is presented in a way which could be
> misleading about the possibility of some digital machine thinking like us,
> or even being us.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis en listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20181123/5613e28e/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Fis mailing list