[Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 105, Issue 12 Human Wisdom vs Meta-Intelligence. Universal contextual contradictory wisdom

[Karl Javorszky]

Paradigms about Intelligence

2023 11 12



Dear Yixin and all,



Thank you for giving the discussion the necessary depth and sincerity.

Your points:

   1. “Paradigm is a scientific worldview and its methodology” shall be
   restricted to its methodology;
   2. AI refers to the current state of scientific knowledge;
   3. Methodologies should be changed,

are the important keystones.

Ad 1. A new methodology, if really new, implicates a change in perspectives
and can, and will in some cases, lead to a change in worldview. In fact,
the new methodology will appear alien and devoid of context if presented
without a change in perspective, which is necessary to employ the tool.

Let me bet that no one among the learned friends has taken the half-hour of
hands-on exercise in logic connected to the reordering of a dozen books
from author-title into title-author.

Why would the recognizance of place-attribute changes during a reorder to
be consisting of relatively few linear sequences of one-on-one push-away
incidents bring one forward on the path of understanding intelligence?

It needs a change in a world view until one accepts that the world is –
exactly speaking, not with the Sumerian callousness to small details –
actually out of whack with itself and is continuously trying to assemble
those parts that are too much disassembled and disassemble those parts that
are too much assembled.

The epic class struggle, known in sociology by Marx, has arrived in the
exact sciences. Like interferometry, the intelligent algorithms deal with
the *difference *between two measurements. To understand that there is an
inbuilt inner controversy, difference in Nature is one thing. To understand
that, after some number-processing trivial tricks, this inbuilt slight
inconsistency is presented as a model and is solidly rooted in natural
numbers, this is what runs against taboos learnt as children. We have been
taught: the world as a logical construct is since Descartes imagined as a
buildup of units that fit next to each other seamlessly.

This fundamental conviction needs to be dropped if one starts to use
*two *mental
radars and is concerned about the deviations between the two measuring
instruments.

It is didactically impossible to build a bridge in the brain of the subject
between the insights: “yes, there is a basic duality” and “differently
sorted objects are in different linear sequences” without going through the
self-education of discovering that cycles are linear sequences which can be
synchronized. The cross-section of reorders contains those occurrences that
can be contemporaneous.

To understand the concurrent coexistence of coincidences it is necessary
that one understands cycles that are collections of coincidences.

To understand that cycles are collections of coincidences one needs to
understand the idea of cycles. The best way to do so is to order and
reorder say 12 books on your table.

Ad 2. Current literature

Experimental approaches are bravorous but disqualified, because a finite
automat cannot be creative. For simplicity’s sake, let us drop any belief
that anyone else is cleverer than we are. This is a job we ourselves have
to shoulder. FIS has good chances to become recognized as the birthplace of
an integrated theory of inner consistency, or whatever name the construct
we are excavating from each other’s heads, will be called.

Ad 3.: Methodologies need an update

Once you have built your own little tautomat, you will cry out: *¡caramba!*
this hybrid between sudokus and Rubik’s cube delivers all kinds of numeric
interdependencies! Among other goodies, the tautomat yields the
so-called *logical
archetypes*, agglomerations of coincidences which share spatial
coordinates. (These appear to be called by the applied scientists: chemical
elements.) The methodology is in itself a change in perspectives, and if
there are two or more different perspectives, then the world possesses two
or more properties. This again leads to a world view change.



Was there not a Chinese emperor who forced the public servants to learn to
write (in standardized ways)? What we need now is an imperial edict to
teach every teacher of mathematics to order and reorder *12 *books and
write an essay about the experience.



Karl
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20231112/0f569469/attachment.html>