First-Hand Computerized Mentality
G15 PMN FCM Open Robotics
Screen image of G15 PMN app #5553588,
which exemplifies simple open source
pattern matching suitable for refinement
into robotics programming, completely
without relying on any pretentious
concept of "AI". The photo is taken by
Aristo Tacoma and copyright him,
please see full acknowledgements
for this photo in the first photo editorial
in BERLiNiB 2020/C, full PDF is here:
industrialbabes.com/2020/ib20c.pdf
Open Robotics
G15 PMN FCM:
First-hand Computerized
Mentality
with the
G15 PMN programming
language
This page is maintained
by Aristo Tacoma
The phrase "open robotics" like
"open software" has always been
a very obvious one; we have used
the phrase for years obviously
without considering it a brand,
but rather an approach, just as
open software is not properly a
brand but an approach. The
importance should be obvious
to all: when robotics is a force
in humanity, open robotics
is about letting all technologically
interested people have first-hand
access to all ingredients of the
robots, at all levels, so that it
doesn't become a question of some
humans controlling others through
closed robotics.
For many years, after the
publication of well-thought
treatises by experts dismantling
the whole idea of "Artificial
Intelligence", including "The
Emperor's New Mind" by Oxford
professor Roger Penrose (teacher
of Stephen Hawking), there was a
sober attitude about computers.
That changed when Apple, Google
and other giant companies decided
to invoke terms like "smart" and
"intelligent" and apply to their
gadgets, followed by Amazon, IBM,
Honeywell-Bull, etc etc. Soon,
paid professors in commercially
oriented research institutions
begun to speak of "the long winter"
where AI was criticized, implying
that greater wisdom had come to
prevail. But not everybody
are letting money be a substitute
for facts: there simply is no
such thing as "artificial
intelligence", nor will there
ever be, except as a false,
pretentious packaging of
algorithms which may be simple
or complex, statistical or not,
error-prone or not. Nor is there
any "machine learning" nor will
there ever be, only algorithms
changing data in matrices. Only
those profoundly uneducated in
philosophy and psychology,
besides hypnotized by an
unthinking mainstream, can be
so shallow-minded as to apply
words implying mentality and
understanding, such as pattern
recognition, to machines, without
having these phrases in quotes:
pattern "recognition". The apt
term is, of course, "pattern
matching".
Is this a complicated theme?
It ought not to be. Simulating
learning is _not_ learning.
Mimicking mind is _not_ mind.
Modelling intelligence is _not_
intelligence. Making an algorithm
that has superficial or deep
similarities with some processes
of consciousness is not, and does
not lead to 'an emergence' of
consciousness: for at bottom,
always, there is the digital
either/or. There is no machine
learning, only machine "learning".
This sloppy use of English ought
to be cleared up by the English
dictionary-makers of this world,
but they are clearly too
immearsed in the narrative set
forth by the multi-billion
industries whose business interest
it is to glorify the machine on
the expense of the human being.
Let it be clear: there are many
voices like mine. And there is
nothing illegal about denying
the "AI" concept. There is no
implicit reason why my statements
on this page cannot one day become
entirely superfluous, because
these statements may come to
reflect a mainstream attitude. It
only requires a dash of ethics into
the billionaires in charge of
the language used by the
computation industry, who is
having a governing hand on
the rest of society, including
the universities.
Those who are awake to the
fact that the human brain is
not a machine [see footnote] and that
consciousness, creative intuition,
mindfulness, and creative intelligence,
are not emergent properties of
anything machinelike, will also
not use terms like "augmented
reality". There is no "augmented
reality", only projections of
displays and such into the
sensory field of humans being
silly enough wire themselves up
that way. Those who are awake
to the fact that mind is not
machine, the human being is not
a mechanical instrument, and that
any form of human-made computer
whatsoever is inferior to the
natural real living thing,
will also naturally be careful
about projecting illusions of
machine-based life-like elements
into reality. For the sake of
the wholeness and health of
the human mind/brain, a PC
ought not to look too much
like reality; any computational
device ought not to have too
many similarities with reality,
whether in form or in content,
in color or in patterns. The
PC ought to have fairly visible
pixels, and monochrome; vids
ought to have visible flickering
like early movies--for the sake
of stimulating rather than (as
YouTube and the IG Video and
others focussing on video are
doing)--hypnotizing and making
people carried along with
artificial emotions.
Is there an alternative concept
to AI when it comes to robot
programming?
Yes, of course. There are two
obvious alternatives: [1] never
to use algorithms that have any
even faintly mindlike feature
about them, [2] to use algorithms
that have a mindlike feature about
them but only when they are not
presented in a cloud of illusion
in which the pretention is that
there is anything really mindful
about them. In other words, to
use algorithms that can call on
such as fuzzy probability
measures involving pattern
matching, but in which we are
maintaining a context in which
we totally and completely keep
words such as "learning",
"intelligence", "thinking"
and even "smart" as belonging
to human beings rather than
to any machine made in our
factories.
The point about First-hand
Computerized Mentality, or FCM,
is to create suites of programs,
books, and a sense of societal
dialogue, that honor the human
mind as above and beyond the
machine, even while we enable
computers also to operate in
robotic machinery of various
kinds to help us with boring
and/or dangerous or too
heavy tasks. There can be some
other uses of FCM, also. The
FCM approach is twofold:
[1] FCM is a philosphical
approach for working with
programming in a context
in which the programmers
express their minds through
programs that share in with
some of the activity patterns
of mind, not presuming that
there is anything intelligent
or mindlike about the machine;
never using terms such as
'machine learning' or
'artificial intelligence' or
even 'smart' about algorithms,
but rather describing the
activities in a context in
which the vision of the
human being is not one that
is premised on a reductive
mechanical worldview. In
this approach, consciousness
and feeling are understood
to be primary and essential
and not something that
emerges through some form
of machinery, digital or
other. The philosophical
approach involves a discussion
of nonreductive worldviews,
and it is a typical feature
of this discussion that there
is no admiration of those
who believe that they can
make a new-beyond-digital
type of 'quantum computer'.
The quantum computer is
a total illusion, a fake
idea created on the basis
of an illusory understanding
of nonlocality in quantum
physics, nourished by
companies and militaries
who believe they will get
an upper hand on commercial
and military processes by
pretending that their waste
of money in trying to make
a quantum computer is not
a waste of money. Nonlocality
is not open for manipulation;
it is not properly understood
whether in the philosophy of
physics nor handled more than
extremely partially within
the equations of quantum
physics and without it,
there can be no accellerated
computational process.
The illusion of Artificial
Intelligence has a parallel,
in other words, in the
illusion of a possible
Quantum Computer. There
will never be any Quantum
Computer, except in the
sense that any digital
computer is already calling
on quantum features to
exists through its
semiconductors.
[2] FCM is a set of
functions, culiminating
in the function 'fcm',
written in the G15 PMN
programming language as
part of its socalled 3rd
Foundation, which allows
great variation in how
it can be utilized for
practical implementations
of robotic programming and
other types of programming
in which some kind of
mindlike feature, such as
pattern matching, is
engaged. As such, the
G15 PMN FCM programming
framework is one way to
implement the philosophical
idea of FCM in practical
terms.
This approach to robotics
is presently under
development, and the
current texts that pertain
to this development
include the Art of Thinking,
a five-volume series, where
the three first volumes (the
third written in 2020) are
so far finished:
at1.pdf
g15pmn_for_teens.pdf
at_vol_3.pdf
The apps relevant to open
robotics in the FCM sense
are developed alongside
the above book-writing
process. These are all listed
at g15pmn.com =>
norskesites.org/fic3/fic3inf3.htm:
G15 CORE PATTERN MAKE 5551234
G15 CORE PATTERN ENTRAINMENT 5551269
PATMAT SHEETS 5553588
***FOOTNOTE: Q-FIELDS,
MIND NOT A MACHINE
Since before the time of the
british thinker Isaac Newton,
but certainly after him, many
people (despite that Newton
himself did not at all believe
the universe was a machine)
have sought to describe the
universe as a machine. This
is called 'the mechanical
worldview'. In such a picture,
the human brain and body is
a machine and anything that
doesn't appear to be
mechanical will turn out
to be so on closer inspection,
including sex, consciousness,
mind, intelligence, cell
functioning, ageing, birthing,
and so on. In such a picture,
God is a machine-generated
concept of something not
necessary and probably
non-existing.
Such a mechanical worldview
inspires egotism, liberation
from morals, liberation from
fears of death, and liberation
also--if 'liberation' is the
right word--from hope of
anything greater in life
than sensory experience
such as spiritual experiences.
In a mechanical worldview,
the brain is a chemical-
driven machine and by
adding chemicals one may
induce certain sensations
and to call them 'spiritual'
is up to the individual, but
it is an unnecessary concept.
If the worldview of the
mechanical type is right,
how does one explain the
existence of any advanced
living structure with what
appear to be designed
features? The logical
answer within a mechanical
worldview is to put faith
to the statistical results
of mixing things together
over a very long time and
hoping for coincidences to
help organize things through
a 'survival of a fittest'
pattern suitable to create
highly advanced structures.
This is the atheist view
of how human beings came
into being, and it is, in many
regions of the world, quite
mainstream after having been
championed by Charles Darwin
since, about, the inception
of the 20th century.
As an alternative worldview
to the mechanical, we have
the organic worldview. This
is held by such thinkers as
Aristotle and possibly by
such thinkers as Gothama
the Buddha and Lao Tse, all
of whom probably lived about
at the same period some 4-500
years before Christ. In an
organic worldview, events
that unfold are driven by
holistic patterns including
some kind of intentionality,
whether some divine beings
are in charge of these or
not. Such holistic patterns
have been hinted at in the
findings of 20th century
physics. All the authors of
the so-called 'quantum theory'
quarrelled until the end of
their life about quantum
theory. There is no true
consensus about what quantum
findings mean, only exhaustion
about discussion, and about
the complexities--many of
which appear to be in
principle unresolvable--about
the implications of the
equations. In the 'engineering'
point of view, quantum physics
is a set of equations with a
statistical nature that suggest
that underlaying forces behind
atomic processes have an element
of chance and nonlocal patterns
to them. In itself, this is not
enough to challenge fully the
mechanical worldview. But to
some, it indicates that
something is severaly amiss
with the mechanical worldview,
and that quantum theory may
be a first step towards a
radical rethinking of the
worldviews in which organic
worldviews of some form or
another are brought back into
shape.
The latter is the approach
taken by this author, in
what is called 'Super-Model
Theory' and for which G15 PMN
is a formalism providing some
illustrations of some features
of the theory which is in
principle informal and not
anchored in the type of
theorizing that is regarded
as kosher in quantum physics.
(It also includes general
relativity phenomena.)
But even if this super-model
theory is incorrect or not
regarded as important to
understand (it is quite
complex), it is possible to
take a leisurely stand to
worldview and simply assume
that an organic worldview
is more correct than a
mechanical worldview and
that this has implications
for the vision of the
human being and the human
mind and intelligence and
the true nature of
consciousness and mind.
Whether this is as a
result of a 'designed'
process by divine beings
or as an organically
upgraded form of darwinian
evolution theory is in such
an approach up to the
individual's tastes.
What matters is that the
organic worldview has in
it holistic patterns and
a degree of intentionality,
and in consciousness, in
our consciousness that we
as living human beings are
aware of, we experience
indeed Gestalts--or
wholenesses--and these
quite often include
intentionality. In an
organic worldview, these
are not entirely reduced
to machine-like behaviour,
but rather can act somehow
to influence that which
is the material aspecdt
of our being. In other
words, intentionality and
gestalts are capable of
shaping some of the
material functionality
of the brain and the body.
In such a view, mind is
beyond yet related to
brain, if by 'brain' we
mean the material aspect
only. Or, we can say, the
word 'brain' more properly
should relate to the whole
organic process beyond the
machine. What this means
on a subatomic level would
depend on the particular
extension to quantum theory
that one would need to have.
In all cases, existing
quantum theory--or, more
properly, theories--do not
suffice to explain such an
extension.
What we would need in
addition to the notion of
particles interacting
through local forces and
through some kind of
nonlocal fields that
have a mechanical nature
is some kind of nonlocal
fields that have an organic,
ie gestalt and intentionality
feature.
How this would be
integrated into physics
would be an open question.
But many people including
David Bohm and the brain
scientist Stuart Hameroff,
friend of Roger Penerose,
have suggested pathways of
such extensions. The physicist
mainstream, wrapped up in
the mechanical worldview
narrative, have largerly
brushed off such attempts
and rushed ahead with their
commercially and military
driven hopes for controlling
nonlocality in new types
of faster computers. The
mainstream, wedded to the
classical popperian attitude,
have called such extensions
'unnecessary' because it
doesn't seem to be
contradictory empirics
calling for it. But they
may be forgetting that
contradictory empirics
suitable to provide popperian
'instances of disconfirmation'
can sometimes only be generated
through a passionate interest
in generating it over a
long time.
In any case, this author has
proposed the notion of
'q-fields' to summarize and
simplify the philosophy of
gestalts, intentionality,
mind, consciousness and brain
in a post-quantum theory
environment in which the
organic worldview is
considered correct. Such a
q-field exists alongside
material particles so as
to provide sometimes
significant changes of
their otherwise mechanical
movements. These changes
are sometimes in alignment
with quantum theory and
sometimes cannot be reached
in terms of an understanding
by quantum theory. Rather,
they must be understood on
more mental principles
such as gestalt and
intentionality; and q-fields
can derive from q-fields on
several levels and at some
levels we reach the quantum
level in which only the
more mechanical aspects
are seen (and the rest is
seen as peculiar 'chancelike
fluctuations').
The letter 'q' is therefore,
in the concept "q-field",
indicating an inspiration
from quantum theory but a
more general stance.
A q-field, in how this
writer proposes it, can
enwrap certain material
structures and some material
structures are better suited
for strong interaction with
higher-level q-fields than
others. So, for instance,
a micro-computer is designed
to minimize chancelike
fluctuations and maximalize
the mechanical aspect at
the near-atomic level. In
other words, it is made
so as to shift the higher
q-fields away.
The human brain has many
features that one can
speculate invites a sense
of higher-level quantum-like
activity. For instance, Stuart
Hameroff sometimes invoke
beautiful metaphors--ie,
he speaks of the human
brain not as a quantum
computer but as a 'quantum
orchestra'.
This writer is suggesting
that a key feature of a
state of mind where the
human brain is evoking
higher-level (ie, more
organic and less mechanical
q-fields, in a meaningful,
intentional, gestalt-
oriented way) is one in
which there is a high
degree of coherence with
a movement that is
sensitive to just the
right group of fluctuations.
These fluctuations act as
(to use Huxley's metaphor')
'the door of perception'.
Q-fields, in how this
writer sees it, is a
concept that is more
up-to-date than the
pre-20th century idea
of a life force, or the
Chinese idea of 'chi',
but have sometimes a
similar application.
For instance, an apple
may have a q-field that
exists in addition to
its physical measurable
features and that accounts
for its presence and
perhaps may influence its
action on the human body.
A feature of a q-field
is that form, not merely
substance, matters. This
type of thinking has been
explored much by David
Bohm, ever since he worked
on alternative equations
for quantum theory in a
form related to de Broglie's
work (but different from it),
in which form not intensity
of what he called 'quantum
potential' is decisive for
its influence. In such a
view, information is not
merely 'useful structure'
but it may have features
that can only properly
be understood in an organic
worldview.
In this regard, speaking
of computer programming,
it is interesting to note
that computers are said
to do 'information processing'.
The programmer, having thought
about q-field, is naturally
led into questions like,
'does a program have a
q-field'?
Once this question has
arosen, one will, on working
with pattern matching and
goal sorting FCM-like
routines, be tempted to
play with a question like,
'does this program has a
q-field that somehow
interact with its
fluctuation features?'
The fluctuations of a
digital computer program
comes in chiefly through
RFFG, or Relatively Free
Fluctuation Generator
algorithms that feed on
such as the milliseconds
while creating chancelike
numbers through some
arithmetic, and through
the presentation and
reception of impulses
with a living human
interactor. In having a
program that may have a
structure that has a
coherence with the human
interactor, and that has
a set of fluctuation
oriented parameters for
significant change that
somehow fit with the
flow of this coherence,
yes, of course, a q-field
can arise. That is the
proposition of this
writer.
The explorations of
q-field are complicated,
especially if one is
wrapped up in popperian
science. My writing on
'neo-popperian' science
is perhaps providing a
pathway for the deeply
interested reader. In
a neo-popperian approach,
what is a genuine intuition
is sought to be
differentiated from
guessing, and is considered
to be, given certain
conditions such as
repeatability, an adequate
additional source of
'instances of confirmation'
and 'instances of
disconfirmation' of
theories and propositions.
In this light, yes, the
app #5553588 has, in the
neo-popperian study by
this writer, a q-field--
quite a powerful one, and
more noticable than that
of all apps previously
made by this author;
and so does any well-written,
meaningful, ethical extension
of this app.