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 TacomaThe 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:  never to use algorithms that have any even faintly mindlike feature about them,  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:  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.  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.