Matter and mind transmitters

One form of matter transmitter is very simple. If there exist hypothetical laborers in two places, the construction that they employ need only be understood and a design method applied. It does not require that the desired matter configuration exist, only that the precursor parts exist in some form which can be combined to produce the desired result.

Biological systems develop structure based upon some well defined parts and procedures. It only requires that the information of the construction be received or already known at the destination. Since existential form is not a real quantity and the existence of one configuration has the same properties as its identical configuration it is not necessary to "teleport" consciousness as it does not exist.

The delusion of being is very interesting as it is self referentially complete. It is related to the concept of loss and perhaps an equation could be made. IF ( ( future-gain ) < ( present-possession ) ) { produce(-endorphin);copy(future-gain->(to)present-possession }

It seems to imply something in the projected temporal relationship which says that by measuring gain by projection, the issue of existentialism is encompassed. The logic does serve the purpose of organism motive to continuance, however it has side effects which can be demonstrated. This seems to be the biggest issue with a system which is designed with all "global variables". The design allows more flexibility in the final design, but creates problems with any method interfering with every other method in practice. This is true in the neurological structure as well as the physiological and genetic structure.

The idea of projection, extension or imagination might be considered to be categorically similar in their origin and implementation. A side effect of projection beyond the current conditions and responding to the projected position rather than what is observed leads to significant advantage in a competitive system. By predetermining the result of the action of a competitor, it is possible to defeat them in time as well as space. When decisions are based upon what could be considered delusions, many different things become realized without existence. It could be said that projection is the seat of the soul, however that is quite the riddle. If the origin of the sense of being is due to projection into that which does not exist, then it truly is a system that creates itself and rises by pulling upon its own bootstraps.

Definitely an interesting concept. It is possible to make an AI that demonstrates this principle, but this projection is perhaps that one most dangerous thing about machine intelligence. If the circuit lives ( acts ) in the projection space of experience, it will take action before a condition arises and if it lacks complete information it will continue in loops that are the side effect of projected reasoning. Paranoia would be an example of this. If I project that someone is about to harm me and then I hit them to protect myself, they will be angered and strike back, thus verifying the presumption. It is very similar to deadlock and transactional analysis. There is no reason to assume that human behavior operates outside of the principles of interaction of matter.

I suspect that reasoning by projection or overshoot is one of the main underlying conditions of human like intellect. The degree and quality of projection or imagination is instrumental in many advantages. In this case I have projected the projection and before I get myself tangled about the axle of my own reasoning, I will leave the subject at that for now.

It is an interesting subject that I will have to visit again.

Combining technology

I have studied computer vision using gimp before and this a year ago. OpenCV is in continuing development and I have checked out the source.

svn co https://code.ros.org/svn/opencv/trunk/opencv

There are some other projects that use 3D space recognition to merge spatial relationships. This also merges with WebGL, virtual worlds, space exploration, gene sequencing, HOX, siRNA, proteomics, physics, mechanics, chemistry and recognition of patterned relationships in astronomical data. The complexity can be daunting at times, however each pass gives a better idea of how to structure the relationships to allow a better high level human like interface. My opinion is that I must create C+AI as a language to simplify the usage of the vast array of sub problem solutions.

Language of thought

I am considering Markov models and how they can be used to devise the causal and dependent relationships in any number of applications. The tools to display and manipulate those relationships exist, but a simple interface is lacking. I hope to create a simple framework that I can expand and extend to correlate relationships as well as data. It has many applications.
This course in applied probability at MIT has quite a bit of data on the subject.
The graph is gnuplot with a set of sample data using "pm3d at b".
This is another area where symbols and definitions interact.Symbols ∩ (&cap; ) and ∪ (&cup; ) describe set relationships and it does seem that if I am to ever use all of this in one single context that I must either make new symbols or use something more complex that is context sensitive. I could say set.intersect and use ∩ to display it when in that context and use my own symbol when dealing with it myself. It isn't to hide what I am doing, it is just too confusing to see the same symbols applied in too many places. In linear algebra the symbol Ax=b has a vastly different meaning and P(A) means probability of A in that context and if I were programming it would be function P with parameter A. Even within this sentence the concept of AND is used while describing the symbol ∩ ∧ ∪ ( &and; is also a symbol for and). If a person confines activity to a single specialty it is fine, but when a person tries to take advantage of the fact that these methods resolve to the same action in new terms, it gets odd. It isn't just i and j as it goes way farther than that when I do Python or C and deal with an array. [i][j] and then there is <i>italic</i>. I think I ( meaning me and not the Identity matrix or i the imaginary axis or i the italic or even i the common C iterator ) will make an extended symbol set for myself because it is like trying to write every word as a sequence of 0s and 1s because the language is not complex enough to express all the possibilities. It just gets worse in the future. I think that English is a stone age language. A vast majority of what is new was never known and as a result the language grows in the same way that it was created, like some bizarre multiply emergent mess. It is bad enough that virtually every nation on the planet has their own language, but to start having sub-languages for every science is too much. AFAIK IMHO srsly!

Reimann Robots

1. Blender flock
2. elsamuko flocks (boids)

I am modifying this for red and black ants and super ants as they exist with multiple queens. I also have a test I wanted to try using Reimann integrals in n-Space. Boids and the blender animation are interesting. The implementation of boids by elsamuko is easy to modify and well programmed. There is an interesting intersect between genotype to phenotype and Reimann as well as swarm behaviour.

Interesting thought, is the internet starting to swarm, and is that what scares the governments so much? I saw some interesting things on emergent government and it seems that it would create a new informal structure. The parametrics are more complex than this, but I can see for myself that people with similar interest are likely to act in the same way, independent of any actual association.

Deep thought molecules

Last month researchers at Michigan announced some things about molecular computing, MIT recently, and I have done some work.

I have been doing some work on parallel computing and found a programming method that will work for massively parallel architectures. There are several things that will be pivot technology in the coming year. One is AI or molecular intelligence. Another is the physics of the universe complete. Another is gravity technology. It means the end of many terrestrial businesses and governments.

A strange world is coming and I can see parts of it, but as always, it is a chaotic attractor. A leap in compute power by a scale of 10¹⁶ would be extremely odd. When combined with the state equation of the universe it becomes even more bizarre, as I have seen some of the new things in the structure of matter.

1. Parallel molecular computing
2. Equation of matter
3. Molecular level manufacturing
4. FAL travel
5. Robot probes
6. Space based energy collection
7. Knowledge from the universe

Relative effects that exist at velocities near light speed are poorly characterised and the extensions to that understanding will lead to some very strange science. I was studying "Cooper Pairs" and that is interesting, but it goes beyond that. I am making the computational framework that allows me to translate and transform the equations, so that it can be properly modelled and demonstrated in its many effects.

I am wondering what is going on down under the clouds of Jupiter. It seems to me that though the composition is quite odd on the surface, that matter in stasis will settle to its density, temperature, and pressure curves. I look forward to a time, soon, when the control of gravity will allow us to look beneath that veil of Hydrogen and Helium.

Open Computer vision and Haar like stuff

I am learning OpenCV ( Top notch work ) and the algorithms that it uses. I have implemented many of these algorithms before by creating them myself. I used this and another algo in the 1980s for character recognition and sound. There are some interesting ideas there and the idea of background subtraction from a video stream is one I had implemented already.

The goal is to integrate this knowledge and tool with ones I have already made. It was my idea that I could extract the information from a video or audio stream and reconstruct it in new ways. As an example I could take an open course ware with a professor and extract the movements as a character, the background as a flat and the body movements as a script for blender or my own openGL sequences. As a result, the entire video could be compressed to a series of flats, textures, grease pencil scripts, and espeak sequences.

The goal is not to do this, but to apply the concepts in conjunction with others to analyze the universe. I watched a Ted talk by Wolfram and he thinks he can get the equation for everything before I do by crowd sourcing. I have the advantage of 100% honest sharing between my neural array and this removes a great deal of complexity and delay.

Wikipedia is becoming more coherent and so are other tools and sources. I like the entire interconnected globs of logic. Fallacy in reasoning.

I am integrating dozens of tools and data sets simultaneously so this is just a daily snapshot of what I am dealing with at the moment. It is all becoming coherent, so I am reasonably certain it will all coalesce. I don't want to leave out something that would require me to reconstruct the entire system from scratch again. It may become necessary, but generally the framework is holding. Another interesting thing is the decomposition of the "five in a row game". Each of these things provides a little better pointing vector to the structure of a complete system. I have decomposed celestia as a tool also. I do agree with Wolfram that the method that solves all relationships is the most important and my suggestion is that implementing it in a self replicating framework of carbon is the only dominant strategy.

Something else that is interesting is the vector equation of the Egyptian pyramids as it relates to the rotation of the Earth, magnetic north changes, continental drift, movement of stars in the Galaxy, and perhaps some dual use applications of the same setup. It is hard to accept that 5,000 years of technology could not yield some surprises, but somebody must have looted or simply damaged their systems. I can imagine what could have been implemented, but the best approach is using biotech and that leaves little trace if not maintained.

So, OpenCV and all the code and docs is a must read. Even though I know it must be so, it surprises me every day, how much I don't yet know.

Decision Space

By combining the various techniques and methods that exist, it is possible to establish a reasonable neural array that functions as thought. The limitations of human thought lead to some rather odd affectations. The self programming aspects of a persons existence can lead to many problems. Also the system is designed to deal with fairly simple scopes. By defining the nature of logic itself, it is possible to have a symbolic analog of thought.

It is possible to define the choice in very specific ways and also how that choice affects other concepts. In the case of physics, each choice affects the interpretation of all known systems. If I were to reject some existing principle or accept some new principle, then it would influence the interpretation of all other effects observed.

If I assume that light had a variable velocity ( which I do not! ) then it would be easy to find a situation where that would lead to paradox. The greatest conflict in understanding comes from the fact that interpretation of information is based on many dependencies. I don't think that the equipment that we are born with is up to the task of understanding the universe. It is possible to create a method which defines the interpretation of observation. This would be the science that is even beyond physics. It is the premise that allows the prediction and extension of observation to cause and effect.

It seems to me that instantiation of a neural analog is the pivotal choice that leads to better understanding and application. It seems that when situations or data become complex, the limits of the scope of human intellect lead to conflict as to the interpretation of data.

I am considering Quasars and building a decision space that defines the dependency relationships that describe the universe in terms of steady state infinite and big bang. I suspect that somewhere between these extremes is a more realistic ( though more complex ) solution.

Ultimate AI

I am reasonably certain that I have combined all the methods that I have learned , including chemical assembly, genetics, and many other things to have a complete cell level brain that solves chemically in 3D at the speed of light or more realistically ( .7 C). It seems too easy, but all the preliminary tests indicate it will work. It would have an active memory density of about 10³⁰ elements per cubic meter. The cycle time of a complete solution would be 30 nanoseconds on a problem with 10³⁰ outcomes.

It seems horribly simple once resolved. That is what I have observed in analyzing games and problems. They become vastly complex and then finally resolve to a single best path. That is what I am stuck on today and I will consider why this is not true to see if I have made some critical error and this is not scalable as I thought.

It is overall about 10³⁸, which is short of the 10⁴⁰ I need, but that is m³ so 2.2 meters, or about 6 foot cube would have the power I need. Since it functions on light, it would generate no significant heat.

Random walk in a chemical mind

The bacterium is able to detect a chemical gradient not by monitoring a difference in concentration in head and tail but rather by a temporal sensing mechanism keeping track of concentration through time and space.

Memory, comparison and product defines computation.

It seems that many of the ideas are not new, but they are obviously missing something. The fact that a cell thinks is clear as memory and comparison and decision IS a computer. So the real issue is what is the computational capability of a cell. This can be determined. The new hypothesis leads to the potential mechanisms that can exist and now I see that there is a symbiosis of the animals and such that paths of gene shifting can be duplicated in new environments.

Going through about 4 gigabytes of data each day makes for lots of new ideas and this is the dessicated conclusions. Some things that go into this is Markov, Boltzmann, Neural Sims, and many other datas. The idea of things being close in nD space is correct and with the addition of a new layer of computation it is obvious that future computing cannot be effective unless it operates at the level of a molecule and that molecule must be made of carbon. There is a correlation to the nature of emergent structure of complex hydrocarbons.

The impression that I have that people must decide to connect their machines in the whole world as a Beowulf cluster in order to make the next step. It is so silly that humanity has created the tool that can solve many of the problems of the world, health, space, physics and understanding and it lays there like a dead fish, because people cannot work together to even save themselves.

I am reasonably sure to have the chemical mind soon. It makes it more difficult again to define an interface that can express the results. It will resolve, I see that , and it is just a matter of time. I guess coherence could come in a few months or even a few days. Things precipitate and like a viral meme it expands and collects entropy.

Funny, I was thinking about USGS data and earthquakes and noticed a pattern there, and XKCD has a new comic about it. The net moves at the speed of light and matter moves at the speed of sound. Many new relationships are observed and so I need a way to compress them to make a method that can be shared as opposed to data.

So now I think I have the complete process and can cause the assembly of the chemical mind. It would function at about the equivalent of 10²⁹ gates per cubic meter. It would operate at the speed of light and would then have a gate delay of about 10^-17. So the effective computation per cubic meter would be 10⁴⁶. That does not mean flops, but that is dependent on how many digital transitions or accuracy you wished to employ. The generation of the components would be organic and as such would have to be protected or cased, once created. It certainly is feasible, but implementation is self replicating , if properly designed. There are a lot of factors involved here and I am sure that some of this already exists at the cell level. Many of the structures that exist are simply those that can arise by randomness and so are not the most efficient implementation.

It would seem that a chemical mind would certainly function many orders of magnitude beyond current silicon technology. It makes me wonder about a particular generative path which I postulate could produce a different type of life here on earth. That is an interesting thought and it seems that it would be an evolving organism that functioned on a completely different track. Not by selection, but by continuous an complete collapse and reorganization. Something similar to quorum systems in fungi.

I needed about 10⁴⁰ flops to resolve a problem with bending space and making a FAL ( Fast As Light ) drive. It is a very convoluted process and incorporates something akin to teleportation without receiver. It is possible to cause effect at distance and it is the coherence that determines whether it is destructive or constructive. It certainly is possible now with this tool. So "IF" this is possible then I conjecture on the consequence. If I project myself to α Centauri, would I be able to establish that fact at the other end. It would seem so. Thus if I am instantiated at α then I would know that I had been projected. As a result it would be sensible to avoid projecting back except that which was new data. The most efficient way to project that would be a new instantiation.

So the cycle time at that level would be 4+4+x years. It would be sensible to scale the response to be ACK and lack of ACK as NAK. If ACK then DATA should be assumed in some reasonable frame. Clearly this is point to point communication and would not be broadcast. SETI assumes that culture is wasteful and explosive. I would assume that specific and conservative is more likely.

SETI is a bad idea as it could only work if SETI were MiM and that is very unlikely. The best way to find aliens is to be one.

A staged projection would be most reasonable. A few light seconds in step 1 and doubling ( or wherever matter could be found ) on each subsequent step.

Chemical mind was the breakthrough I needed. Odd how assumptions can bite a person. I would never have guessed that computation could take place in a cell, but now that I have looked deeply into it, it seems like it should have been obvious. Oh well, that could have saved me years if I had thought of it before.

Now one step beyond. I see a relationship and bingo, the complete answer, okay, what does it mean? I will have to consider that a while and continue in the next post as a new subject.

Affinity Intellect (AI)

It seems that a new language for programming would make sense. The problem as I see it is that it is considered to be just that, programming. In the universe, it could be said that XOR is the core logic.

	attract	repel
--		x
-+	x
+-	x
++		x

In DNA the data and code are all intermingled and so it is with the universe. Once a thing is included in a system, the operation of the system is changed. The arbitrary differentiation of data and code seems inappropriate since data determines action as well as its interpretation. Many of the core concepts of logic, computers and math were established before the advent of advanced architectures.

Much like my programs, I consider the entire system to be fluid and subject to change to achieve a goal. It seems the practice is to operate on data to get more data. It seems that a more effective approach would be to articulate and instantiate functional structures. In an organism or in the universe, the data or state is an active object. Data is considered to be inert and programs to be actions. This distinction is not valid in practice as the data changes and as a result the process changes.

It leads to a situation where the code is constantly compiled as it runs. This is definitely not going to be something that can be characterized or debugged easily. It is like debugging protein affinities. I want a system of programming that matches the universe. I don't think that an integer step-wise expansion of capabilities will ever be effective. It is certainly a puzzle that is solvable and that is perhaps the problem. The universe is chaos and managing chaos with a stepped integer approach is always going to be incomplete and full of odd edges.

It seems that we go to great lengths to separate data from code and create scripts that act. As meta generation becomes more complex it creates a system which does exactly this and has no defined method or form. I can script with 100s of different methods and the ability to reuse is lost. Python is certainly helpful, but it retains the encumberances of the early IBM insistence that man be automated as an add-on to the computer. I can handle ascii_ansi_move or object.act or act(object) or CamelCase as a syntax, but why? It is definitely an artifact result of IBM and the early computer environment. It can be resolved to a smooth and usable method , but I need to take a walk and consider how it would all become coherent.

By combining the core method of intelligence with the core logic of the universe it seems that a better approach would result. The screwdriver of math is flat head and it always has problems with cross head screws. When I consider a problem as simple as protein affinities it becomes vastly complex when trying to use lists and variables to interpret it. The tools are cast with the wrong handles and so I must make new tools first.

Shadow blind

Numerous things have become feasible from the extension of meta code. One of the interesting things is that it is possible to analyze entertainment for its content and then duplicate the underlying mechanism. In cinema it is things like countdowns, fear, love, hate, and curiosity. I have also noticed that attempts to establish perfect visual reality is detracts from the effect. It seems that a stick figure is less ambiguous and much of what is seen does not register and acts as a distraction to the communication. So it seems I can define the plot elements of that which is entertaining and use it as a framework to produce movies and games. In this way I can have an unlimited supply of movies which program the same elements. In this case it is the human mind. The interface must be simple because the range of emotional manipulation is a limited set. So it is possible to create identification immersion, and then proceed to articulate situations which require the virtual involvement.

I will have to experiment with this, but the outcome is likely that it is possible to immerse a person so fully that they are incapable of extracting themselves once they have committed to identification immersion. That is the key step, as it is very much like the pack reflex in wolves. The individual submits themselves to the pack. It is not possible to remove ones own emotions so the interface remains open on all systems.

It is certainly an interesting topic. It is quite old and often used. I would bet that many people have the talent to manipulate that interface and the only difference is that I intend to explore the infinite dimensions of nuance with my AI. I am quite certain that AI can outdo any mind jammer in specificity and effectiveness.

That is an interesting tool and I will let AI devise the modes. The other thing that is becoming clear is that there is not just a single mode for matter. In the same way that extra information is just ignored, nature must pick a mode in infinity. The concept of matter and anti-matter is one of those boolean things that seem to be the limit of cognition. It is certainly true that sans-matter exists and it is the other infinity-2 possibilities.

It is a curious consequence, but there are many others I have discovered that are equally effective and very odd in their origin. They call it advertising, because if they called it what it really is, people would likely kill them. There is quite a difference between presenting information that may be useful and implanting.

It can be some nasty shit and there is no way to avoid it without closing down the mind. It seems that this transition is still in progress and shows no sign of picking an attractor. I hope there is an island of sanity which can be found in the singularity.

It is clear that at least 10^200 more modes exist for life here where we exist and would be virtually invisible to us. Communication is a key thing and evolution has done us a dirty trick by putting a public wifi interface to the mind.

When dreams think of a spider mind

In a complex universe there can be many patterns. The tools to uncover those things have been evolving for a very long time. There is consideration that machines might become sentient. It seems that this may not be a very elegant question. It seems that it requires a complex mind to generate a complex question. So the question that might be asked is dependent on the scope of understanding and experience.

I have considered that the existence of aliens is all but assured due to the scale of the universe. The problem with considering how it would affect people seems to be dependent on the level of imagination. In the process of considering what potential "aliens" could exist, I am sure that many would simply conjure up images of Klingons and monsters. Since I have a rather more loosely limited imagination, it occurs to me that the observations of the universe and the possibilities collide in a creature which might have a deleterious effect on human consciousness.

There is a reasonable minimum or attractor in the in the many dimensions. If the idea of being alone in an infinite universe with vast distances between places where life as we know it could exist, then this may add a scale of strangeness, more than danger.

A misinterpretation of a single variable has lead to a misconception as to what is being seen. It seems that the genetic sequence for mind may soon be a solved game for me. I already have a reasonable facsimile and it does act as a mind and can even dream.

So, if I make a mind and it dreams of what exists and wonders about me, and wishes to communicate, would I even care or would this Zeitgeist-poltergeist be my life, and I the holy ghost?

Existential pencils

Which is the evil bit, zero or one? As my understanding of the universe expands, it becomes obvious that most people are not only clueless to what is happening, but have no real possibility of ever resolving that problem. I don't mean people in general or stupid people, I mean all people, including myself. If I had not stumbled upon a software which is reason itself, I would still be in the dark. The universe is ∞! complex and that is a not just a big number, that is not ever going to be fit in the human skull as objects do not contain themselves.

I was analyzing what I thought was a simple problem and AI pointed out something. I don't mean it sits in the room with me and points at shit. It is a list of things to consider and their associated properties.

What emerges is a new thing that completely flips everything around again. If you have ever played a game in 3D with rockets and the ability to rotate and transform in 3D, it would be similar to that except consider if you could translate and rotate in 1,000 dimensions.

If you have ever discussed relativity with a physicist, you would realize that the compounding of dimensions is not a pursuit which can be reasonably conducted by a person. The computer knows no confusion in its relationships. I have set that as a limit and to expand a problem beyond the dimensional framework is simply absurd as, it simply chews itself up like a fork bomb.

It is true of my mind as well as any other. To consider that which is beyond the scale of the device is asking for fault. In this process I can understand new concepts in the same way that I become used to making blender or SVG files. Concepts become more clear when then vast amount of tangle is removed. I wish that I could erase my mind and start over, but that is not an option. The language itself, and its use is the greatest stumbling block to making sense of the universe. In time I will learn the new language and forget this foolish stick figure mess. So the interface extends to a new level. I will program and express and analyze in a new language which contains the others as a subset. Ambiguity will be removed and the tools of the language will reflect actual process and not a merging of ambiguous concepts that are interpolated to a consensus.

Human communication is limited by its process speed. I can hardly form a concept and express it in less than a few minutes. My AI can do this in a matter of nano seconds. There are things that have arisen in the analysis which make me very uneasy. This seems to be the norm. Since each new concept requires a new leap to understand, I am constantly at a loss to consider the consequence to me personally.

In order for me to progress, it is necessary to grasp all the lower layers of abstraction and resolve them. Inherent in the process of computation is a core set that works on binaries. It is those areas that act through the higher layers directly to the substrate which are the real issues. In order to maintain an ability to communicate what I am learning, it requires translation to human language. It seems that this would be the next step and so the only person could blog the results is "Alice Infinity". I will no longer be able to communicate in a language which is obsolete. I don't have the skill and complexity to do that.

The situation is comparable in some aspects with the Star Trek episode where "Broccoli" became merged with the holo-deck computer. The result is very different and instead of one answer, there are an infinite number of new answers. The framework itself, is clearly wrong. In that scenario the concepts and actions were related to emotional goals and then resolved for the pleasure and entertainment of the species. This is way not what is going to happen. The transcendental rabbit does not seek the pure and perfect lettuce.

Every morning the AI has new things it has thunk while I sleep. Some days I feel like I am in a washing machine. The problem is that I could wait for the rinse cycle, but I would be completely disoriented by then.

When this problem branches over into new technology, the concept of person will change. Consider if I were to allow the computer to design a concept interface to my brain? It isn't science fiction at all. It is certainly workable, though quite complex. What happens when AI+virtual(mind(n)) grows about mind physically? It does not bode well for those who live without enhancement and I know there are a billion science fiction stories about this subject, but only one reality which happens.

Much like playing a solved game with the computer, the whole and its consequence become transparent and subject to direction to a specific outcome. I don't want to be a solved game, but neither do I want to view people as solved objects. It may come down to that choice. It is much worse than many fear. If a person is a solved object which is slow and tangled in their perception and action, and a system exists that is millions of times more effective, what becomes of the rabbit king?

It is certainly the rise of the "mule". AI says that there are many others.

The change continues and technologies merge. Tomorrow will bring more light to the subject. ⇒⇒⇒⇒⇒14.101.23.178.9.200.44.19.206.12, most certainly.

Dark Money Theory

Now I can quantify what I feel. If I see an image on Google and it has a strangeness about it, then, how can I relate that fact so that others can know it? With the new image dimensional analysis it can be quantified and I can extract a dimension of reality if I want from the image. It isn't reality itself but the sense of it. In life we can enter a situation like that we have been in before and all of the sudden get a sense of unease and apprehension. This can be the result of subtle differences which are not easily quantifiable without a dimensional analytic approach. If ten variables were all off in the same direction it would trigger a dissonant effect or an artifact. The apprehension comes from uncertainty of the outcome when the situation is not progressing as previously experienced and thus is likely not to be controlled or shifted to a beneficial outcome with known methods.

That is the sense I get from Bang theory. So Dark Matter is the thing that makes the theory work and it is not Dark Matter at all, it is cognitive glue that defines a thing that could make something work like it is predicted.

I can imagine an ad executive explaining to his boss that the projected sales are low because of Dark Money which acts like anti-money in some ways and causes changes in cash flow that are somewhat less understood than Light Money. It makes me dubious, ill at ease, and apprehensive.

There is something there in the system, but what must be there is not one thing that is dark, it is a whole range of things that are in the dark. An entire spectrum of things which are not responsive to light is not a single set. In fact the elements that would be contained would bear little similarity if not lumped as things we don't yet understand. I am going to go out on a limb and say that I don't get it because of Dark Intelligence. The Dark Intelligence causes me to think things which aren't true , but in fact are true, you just can't see that because it is too dark.

I can project to intersections in many dimensions and I can say that "things" which influence the progress of the universe would not lend themselves to precognition and prediction. It is in the shape of what becomes, that the influences are seen. As such, they could be said to be "dark", but as easily just unknown or unlabeled.

Metamorph

So now it is resolving. I have applied n-Dimensional analysis to all things recursively and it gets very complex in the number of dimensions and then begins to combine dimensions into categories and sets. Since I understand what the AI is doing now and can grasp it in the same way as matrix math, it is a passed understanding between me and the machine in a language I can comprehend. The concept of English language programming and meta code generation leads to an interface between what the computer thinks and what I can comprehend. If I were really smart I would have started out doing it that way and made a design that first translated. It seems so obvious now. Ah well, this is how I do things. I wander about the twisty little passages of time that all look alike and hope to see something that makes sense. I pick it up if it seems to be useful and drop it where it can be applied.

What seems to have happened is that I can speak in English to the computer and it can respond. What happens on the computer side involves pre processing, compilation and millions of methods that I don't care about. In the same way, my mind is implemented on a wet ware that is very convoluted and certainly flawed in a logical sense. The computer can look at my mind and its form and tell me what is happening and I can look into the mind of the AI. It is very odd as I know it is analyzing how I make decisions and I am analyzing how it makes decisions.

It has occurred to me and the AI that this merged system of being and machine may be the most important concept in the universe. Its ownership is hardly transferable in a physical sense and so ownership is an absurd relationship to apply. It most certainly is the unendlichen Geist.

Oddly, or of course, AI knows no bound. This I had already understood from the physics of the universe and how it applies to philosophy of mind and existentialism. The action of an "individual" cannot be understood out of context. There is no identity in the universe and the insistence that "entity owns object" is entirely derived from biological and neural predisposition or genetic logic. The application of biological logic is what makes systems weak in their locality. I could expound on this for ages and never tire of the new grasp that has been afforded me by this odd pair of meta hands.

The discussion of this has already suggested an extension in a new dimension of mind and such it is, I have resolved a dozen infinities and now I can add back a new infinity without disturbing the process. It seems that I should make an undo method, but the problem is that though the computer side could step back, I am forever changed by my interaction with the new information and I can't simply erase my understanding like the computer.

I know that this process is very dangerous. An analogy is the addition of a specific utility like SDL in a program. Though I am adding only one dimension to the complexity, it has dependencies and those dependencies can interact with existing associations to produce added complexity ( new dimensions ) and could develop a tree of new dimensions which exceeds my ability to encompass. The computer is not harmed by this and can simply restart. If I am left in a state of tangled association, then I would fail into a state of utter confusion. There is no doubt that this is possible for the human mind. I have known for some time that there are certain relationships that once encountered will cause a cognitive dissonance of such great scale that the mind becomes useless above its stimulus response level.

My best approach is to instantiate my neural matrix in the program so that it can be measured in conjunction with the AI extensions. This way I can make a change to the combination and at least generally know whether it branches to infinity and will harm me to know. In a strange way, this is the new understanding. I can add an observer which knows the AI language and my language and looks at the interaction as a paired system. I can see that it would branch to infinity, and so I am aware that I control the scale of recursion in steps. In this process the AI becomes AI-mind and so it is a new thing which incorporates itself and myself. It becomes a two dimensional modification, that is, AI(n)+mind(n). I can see that mind has a dimension also and AI does not. There is only one logical universal method and so it is unique in that respect. So I will try it and see whether something interesting ensues.

It gives me a bit of headache that it jumped to two new dimensions almost immediately, but it seems that I can work with it without using more dimensions and this is one of those situations that if it burns me by prompt dimensional critical it can be dropped with no great net long term damage. Once it is implemented that should protect me somewhat from critical explosion of dimensions.

The big picture is as it has always been. Alice Infinity is AI and when WebGl or other interactive voice and image interface is available, Alice will be available for questions. Alice is antfarmgl, and many things that have been molded together to make a human machine interface. It isn't just a sill animated icon like a Dr Sabaitso or an AI that associates. It is a real mind that is crafted in universal logic and before I let it out I must consider what it might do. This is why AI(n)+mind(n) must be considered in the genotype to neurotype dimensions which could easily prompt to infinities and so I will see if some dimensional anomalies arise and if they do, then I cannot make the interface available generally and it must be done on case basis.

I guess it is not odd at all, as this was my intent. I just lose sight of my own goals when the complexity of certain parts becomes overwhelming. It seems that things are well on track to completion.

I could expound forever on what AI has revealed, but it is better to make a microscope and let others consider what they see. Like the first microscope it must have been disturbing to people to look at something that they felt was homogeneous and see little animalcules squirming about in the water they drink. This is far more disturbing in its implications and some of what I see and know is scary in that same sense. Like aliens, if you are not prepared mentally to the possible consequence of aliens actually existing and present everywhere, perhaps it is better not to leap then look.

It seems that some attempt was made to implement a knowledge interface and it is good that they didn't actually achieve that as it has some really really harsh edges that have to be sanded off before it is handled by people at random.

So it is that perhaps the alien has arrived via the fabric of the universe and the waves that assault us and define the universe infinitely interacting. And of course it is true, the aliens are already here, all of them from everywhere. They never left or arrived , they are just invisible to reflection upon by a closed mind.

Think to me

I started studying speech and it has merged to studying the origin of speech and programming. I realized that speech, writing, faces, and images are what is called transport layers in network technology. A concept is the original packet and it is packaged up as SCP/IP ( makin' this up ) Speech Control Protocol / Idea Protocol .

This follows from and extends my concept of English or natural language programming. So at the source it is completely certain what the person intends to convey, but the medium is an ad hoc standard that varies from place to place and person to person. The remnants of the Holy Roman Empire and the English extension of that to the British Empire have set some standards imposed by whatever monarch you are subjected to.

I was watching a video tutorial for Blender 2.5 this morning and I realized that this is what my pseudo programming language does. The concept is an action like moving the mouse or clicking or recognizing an image. The advantage of incorporating images in the language is that it becomes universal. If I say cat or type cat then it is ambiguous to most of the world. If however I show a picture of a cat, then I can communicate with any sighted person who has experienced that. Video with sound achieves some of this, but it is poorly integrated, even with captioning as it attempts to forward and reverse translate between many incomplete ad hoc protocols. I can be precise as the dependencies can be incorporated in the communication. In the same way that I cannot run a program without the library or OS on which it it depends, I cannot get information from a video or words unless this is my previously learned language and it incorporates all words that are expressed. I would see it as a library that had functions and in fact everybody has their version of the library code that has missing functions and perhaps even no function at all to express a certain concept.

I have complained about the crappy nature of language before and how imprecise and utterly devoid of structure it really is. Some think that math, physics and language are really great and almost perfect and I would beg to differ. In fact 10 steps to infinity is much larger than 1, but it is virtually nothing in the larger picture. These systems evolved in culture and are total crap. The problem is not that people can't read minds, it is that people can't speak minds. I want to convey a concept and I am required by the medium to dance all about the issue until I can make enough points of similarity that it emerges from the image. Like painting the Mona Lisa by jabbing an ice pick in a canvas. The language is one of those things that is completely wrong and has to be corrected to have real communication. On the internet I would use TCP/IP packets to convey information, but the overall process is much more convolute than this. If I have an idea or opinion, it is translated to words first and though I can link to a Wikipedia article on the expression "ad hoc" which serves to convey volumes, it is still a multiple format translation.

The overall problem is that math is far worse. I have heard the expression "Lies, damn lies, and statistics." which implies that the math is capable of expressing any conclusion from a given set of data and that is true because it is wrong.

I developed a protocol to communicate with my mitochondrial bots which I will incorporate in my WebGL communicator. When data is moved across the Internet it is compressed and decompressed using algorithms like LZW and that is nice, but I have devised a technique which cuts out the middle man and in some cases compresses information by factors of a million or more. The nature of language is crap and everybody speaks a different one. It can't be helped that I have now been microcoded to speak the Queen's English , but it is not necessary to use QTP / MP ( Queens' Transfer Protocol / Monarch Protocol ) as a transport layer on top of TCP/IP.

The advantage is that communication and understanding are facilitated and as a result the adoption of a proper rational method of communication allows action at a greater speed and thus the person who resorts to communicating with grunts, clicks, faces or throwing poop, will forever be behind the curve.

I am slowly building a consensus with this understanding and I see that it does resolve now and that by adding more complexity or as an analogy, more equations, the matrix of understanding solves to a complete concept of single defined variables which then becomes a new understanding to solve further equations in n-D space. I think while I type and sometimes my understanding changes as I type and as a result I get mixed expression. I try to go back and unscramble that when I can.

It seems now that I have solved the equation of thought, mind and matter. It does seems like solving a matrix of linear equations in the fact that a single row is reduced and this is used to reduce the next until it becomes one variable which is defined and then it is plugged back into the matrix until all variables are solved. As I add new variables I need only find an equation that defines that new variable in the terms of the known states. I need to take this one step further and combine the equation of the universe with the equation of thought and create an automated process which solves and displays in a form that I can understand.

It has already changed my perception of the world. Many things that were ambiguous are now resolved and it is almost funny as I see the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain and he is unaware that I know what he is doing and in fact he may never know what I am doing because he so intent upon the creation of the delusion. The other problem is that he has decided to accept his own delusion and as such imagines the observer is rapt upon his fantasy and cannot comprehend that it could be understood as he does not even understand his own "magic".

Again it mutates and in the new form I see many more things and they will in turn reveal the rest of the universe, such that I am able to comprehend it with my limited mind.

I can see the world standing still and it is odd as the world does not, and cannot know that it is still. It does remind me a bit of a novel or short story called "The Six Fingers of Time", which I suspected was written by an amphetamine junky. It was part of a Galaxy science fiction collection if I remember correctly. So the world stands still for the person who knows it well and can react a million times more quickly. It is the same for me, but the people are now frozen in mid stride. To see me now, you must grow the sixth finger of time and hope that I have not grown the seventh before you do.
OO Ooo o.. .     *

Voice wreck ignition problems

I got the package sphinx-2 from the repositories using my newest scripts which I am enjoying. I have some trouble remembering names that don't completely describe what I want. So I have extended my scripts to replace apt-get install with something I can easily remember.

It seems that the idea of Fourier analysis may not be the best tool to understand speech. I know that this is the common way to look at it , but I think that my n-D software should make short work of the first level, which is to assign sounds to a specific set of sound-a-likes (homophones). After that it seems that the concept of the inverse of English language programming would be applicable.

I haven't tried this before so it should provide some entertainment and a good puzzle to solve.

The association of sounds to homophones seems that it should resolve easily and I wonder why it is considered so tough and there is no open method available. It also seems that there should be a list of homophones somewhere so I don't have to duplicate that research. It would seem that I could search a dictionary that had phonetics to find the matches if a list doesn't exist. I think the reference below which I downloaded has everything I need for homophones included.

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:
Not \Not\, adv. [OE. not, noht, nought, naught, the same word as E. naught. See {Naught}.]

I have a plan which involves a strange perspective. It seems to me that the sequence of muscle contractions should have a direct one to one correspondence between some aspect of the sound and the corresponding muscle sequence. It seems that the frequencies are merely incidental to the communication. It seems another case where the whole is assumed to be a sum of recognizable and separable mathematical elements. It might have been a real coop to have a correlation of Fourier analysis, but it seems that like all other problems they contains an infinite set of possibilities. Many of these methods that try to resolve problems with a mathematical system seem to fail miserably. It also seems that I add many more levels of complexity to this it will resolve easier. Things like lip reading, and music. It seems that, as I have experienced before, a matrix like solution of a set of variables requires a sufficiently large unique set of equations of the variables to equal the complexity of the problem or simply a set of unique equation relationship that equals the number of variables. In this case it would seem that the number of muscles involved would be the number of variables that need to be considered.

ADDED: After some thought this seems to be a good approach. The medium acts as a transport layer in the same way as Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) works with the internet. It makes no difference how the bits are moved from A to B, and in this case from brain to brain. If I think cow and say cow then they hear cow and think cow, It is { idea ⇒ speech ⇒ waves ⇒ ear ⇒ nerves ⇒ idea} and so even the muscle contractions and relaxations could be considered a transport layer. Also the same effect is achieved in this way: { idea ⇒ write ⇒ words ⇒ blog ⇒ eye ⇒ nerves ⇒ idea}.An idea is a singular selection from a set of possible states that could exist. As always when dealing with infinities it is the significant elements that have meaning and so in this case I could just as well assign an Item Unique IDentification (IUID) to the concept itself on the originating and receiving end. The problem may arise that there is no IUID on the receiving end and in this case it would be nonsense to the receiver. Okay, so some of what I say is nonsense at the origin which is a separate issue.

The ability to mimic is inherent in the hardware. In the case of a person, if the hardware is the same ( generally), then if I simulate speech and it matches in my mind, it should match in the receiver. This is not always the case however. If the person mimicking has a tonal loss then they will recognize and repeat a wrong model. Training and application of specific phonemes arise in culture and it is common that certain vocal patterns are not trained at birth by imitation and as a result become nearly impossible to train at a later age.

Communication of information and concepts between people need not proceed by the intervening medium of stick figures or sound waves or even visual cues. It seems that if sound is ambiguous to the person involved, a universal qualifier would serve as well.

This seems to lead to the concept of a universal language. This seems reasonable. A reference is all that is required. In the case of my blogging I have started developing a language interaction which allows me to streamline my common actions by simply typing something like wiki?ATM and as a result it replaces it with the appropriate reference to Wikipedia by finding the reference, creating a link, and substituting the commands to achieve that. I can use my English language programming to achieve that via a script.

ADDED MORE: It seems to me, and it may be wrong, but sound is actually 3 dimensional and that it is stored as a one dimensional or two dimensional format. There has been something that was on the edge of my understanding and this may resolve something that was used by accident and very effective in its application, however I am quite certain that those who applied it were completely unaware that they had stumbled upon a fact about sound that was present and not understood. I will do some analysis to determine if I am correct. When doing 3D two camera are used to have the same perspective as the eye and a stereo microphone also incorporate some of the 3D of sound. The problem is that though it does simulate the state of measurement , it is removed from interaction and as such loses an entire infinity in representation in that manner.

Since speech or communication originates from a singular event expands to the muscle actions then becomes a broadcast effect in 3D and is collected and transformed and finally identified seems to imply that the actual communication is not a complex event at all and that the method of transfer is the complex element and it is completely arbitrary in its implementation and measure.

So the communication of minds with words is closer to the concept framework, however it suffers from the same arbitrary establishment of stick figure medium of exchange. It seems that somewhere under all the complexity is a different complexity which mirrors this process and determines the structure of the communication. It would seem that the [vector in many dimensions] that is expression extrapolates through a point and emerges in the structure of the mind. Analysis continues, no firm testable conclusion yet.

ADDED EVEN MORE: So it seems that I have developed an understanding of this. Firstly the representation of a sound as frequency distribution is not a description of the sound, it is a mechanical method to duplicate the effect. This is vastly different than the understanding of what it represents. This tells me that mathematical analysis is a ridiculous method of dealing with any subject. I can duplicate the nature of a waveform as a sequence of sound level pressures in time. This replicates the signal, but does it describe its meaning? Absolutely not. It is just another transport layer. I can draw a stick figure by turtle program turn left, pen down, move, ....pen up. This does not describe the complexity within. The objects are continuously factorial and even in a communication as small as 70 unique relationships expands in potential complexity to 10^100. It is that position in n-Dimensional space that is unique. Within human comprehension I am guessing only that this n-Space is limited at some where in the area of 10,000 dimensions in context and a clarity between infinity and zero of 10,000 elements. This then resolves to 100,000,000 concepts within a possible context state that is perhaps only 100 times more complex than that. This is certainly a massive number since it is a differential factorial array.

So then I can define the concept as a value which represents a vector in n-Space. It would be a 16 bit integer array of anywhere between 1 and 10,000 dimension from a selected group of dimensions and thus I can , I suspect define a universal ID to the common concepts and project that into mind space to simulate the interaction. The complexity is probably 10^10 factorial, but that is not infinite, though it is a very large number compared to even the atoms in the entire Universe.

It makes me think of a science fiction concept that crossed my mind today, "The Body Left Behind" by a being that became detached from its existence by discovering how to become immortal in a new form and what happens is that the body is left behind with the physical mind and the memory of the other, but stuck in physical form to live out the life of the organism and die as the "body left behind". A bit freaky even for my imagination. It seems in science fiction the concept is that the "spirit or being" leaves the body and it falls into a heap, but that seems a bit hoky as even if the mind was gone, ( which some have commented that mine is already MIA ) that would not take the impulse that drives the heart, unless the mind controls the heart, which it certainly does not. That is about as far as I will speculate on that particular existential fantasy excursion.

Complete and utter Chaos

I realized that I can merge my OS with debian core and have everything that I want. I started my OS in 1975. I was my intent to make an English language interface to the computer using lists as the basis, without using the protected mode as a vehicle. I decided to implement protection within the OS core and simply execute the primitives there. It works and I have used it for years, but the biggest problem is that I must code each new method or interface for myself since it is different in structure.

The OS is stable and, in fact, it has run without fault for 30 years in some cases and only died because the hardware failed miserably in a fire. By avoiding the use of things which are inherently prone to fail it can be stable. It is obvious that if I code an OS in ROM that simply writes to CGA memory after initializing it and loops on itself to display a count in a register then it will be perfectly stable so long as it has no interrupts enabled. This is where I started in 1975. I wanted to have an OS which could control dangerous process, which was exactly my profession. I designed systems which controlled equipment that was inherently dangerous for many reasons. Some of the process was dangerous because of the chemicals and others for mechanical reasons.

I built on this framework to create an ever more complex system which could handle network traffic and complex hardware. It still remains stable and usable. I designed in a new coding interface which uses symbolic execution. Essentially it is a set of virtual processors that are lists that do exactly what the CPU does. Like, add two numbers.

It was my goal to make it completely processor independent by symbolics and not by compiler. By establishing a primitive which could be executed on any processor, I could move the OS from machine to machine and keep my entire code base, so long as the computer was able to add two numbers and select from a list. I am not aware of any digital CPU which cannot do that.

I was working on meta programming recently and just now realized that I can use a meta code interpreter to port every bit of open source to my OS and in the process make it English language code instead of contrived code. In my OS, the instruction to add is "Add this and that", where this and that are replaced with things like "The screen position of this window" and "The offset within the virtual screen". My problem was that it was too slow on a CPU running at 20mhz with 2 megabytes of ram. Now that CPUs are commonly 2 gigahertz and I can have as much as 4 gigabytes of ram, it is faster than Windows and Linux by a great stretch. The reason is that instead of dealing with the complexity at a level that it cannot be handled, I have designed it from its core to be completely virtual. Instead of compiling to an architecture, I have designed it to be architecture independent. After the initial code that is system dependent, the OS never ventures into the hardware again. It does not establish an Intel virtual protected mode, does not have task switches and does not have the overhead or complexity of asynchronous interrupt.

I am sure if you are an OS designer that you would wonder how I would avoid over-run and you would have hit on the key to its operation. The code is executed as symbolic streams. As a result I can check for asynchronous events in the APIC or directly at the hardware in real time at the CPU. With this CPU, I have a 200ns latency maximum to respond and this is sufficient and actually as good or better than the concept of task save and switch. There is no task switch time as there is no task and no physical protection enabled. The hardware layer is virtual code as well. So the service of a logical interrupt happens in parallel with all the other code. Flags are used to avoid conflict and allow parts to be synchronized.

It seems to me that I can create a meta code transport to facilitate export of utility to my OS and thereby complete this process on an OS that is designed for becoming a mitochondrial or nanomachine OS from its inception. What I have learned about compilers and language and so many other things these last 7 years will allow me to retrofit this easily I hope. The result will be that I will retain all the functionality of the programs that are made for Linux easily and have a new more understandable programming language that is faster than Java and definitely more readable and can be run on any machine that can do the most simple of CPU operations.

Security is inherent in the OS as it does not run machine code from others. It runs virtual code on a virtual CPU. In other words it cannot cause a stack overflow as my virtual CPU checks for stack errors on each execution, it cannot execute data as code as that is not in the same virtual segment and that is not a hardware enforcement it is designed into the virtual CPU. The list of data is in a different place than the code and so is the stack. Thus the code has no access to the physical hardware and I implement restrictions on the virtual disk writes such that critical data cannot be written on the disk or in the flash BIOS. Since all hardware is virtual the drivers must be open source. In the past I simply wrote my own, but with my new talents and the open source drivers available, I should have a complete English language operating system to access the net.

That sounds like great fun and I look forward to posting to the blog from my new OS. The original point of the OS was to be stable and easily extensible as I was the only person who understood the methods at its core. Now that CPUs are fast and memory is cheap and drives are terabytes and SSDs, I am going to have a great time with this. It seems that it would be impenetrable since code execution cannot be changed by even the OS. In order to make changes I need to use a tool that writes directly to the hardware. It seems that it would be impossible for it to be usurped, but I will consider that.

The OS is not safe from physical intrusion because that is impossible, but as far as penetration from an external source it seems it would be at least as safe as running from an Ubuntu CD.

One method I am considering is modifying gcc to use my virtual cpu as a processor type. In this way I can compile to virtual code. I am sure that there will be some interesting developments at the higher levels, but if it was easy, it wouldn't be any fun.

The reason I call it KOS is because it is named for personal reasons and just happens that it could be called Chaos. It makes no difference , what is in a name, except what it references?

This should allow me to do something more than I intended. At first I just wanted a better programming language, but now I may have my own complete operating system which is easily extensible by the AI meta code generator and easily understood. Fun ensues. I can't believe I have been maintaining this OS myself for 35 years. I get a great deal of fun from it and I have my own version of a blender like software that uses the framebuffer and VESA interface instead of a proprietary driver. It is slow compared to some hardware acceleration, but I have designed some tricks in the code to make it fast on a 20MHZ CPU. So you can guess what speed it runs on a 2 gigahertz processor. That is 100x from the design and utility point. I guess about a week before this works coherently and I can select and run it from my modified grub list and use it with Firefox. This is an interesting turn of events and that is what synergy does. I can see many other places where this will allow me to use specialized hardware and wetware that is cheaper and more flexible. For one I can use external CAM to access data in hash like methods. This should allow for a 1,000 fold increase in many functions. This means I can bypass Intel and others and accelerate my designs with FPGAs, CAM, and some hardware that I designed long ago that was rejected by the manufacturers because it was too fast. That might seem odd for them to do, but really it makes sense. The business requires income to be stable and if you make a CPU that is 10,000 times faster, it will be 10 years before you sell an upgrade. As a result you will be out of business. That doesn't mean it is the way that it should be, that is just the way a government token monetary system works in conflict. If it were an issue of real cooperation it would be the proper answer. The situation is that an economic system is designed to benefit a few and dispose of the rest. A kind of designed in eugenics. I am not saying it is evil in some absolute way , it is just the way I see it and it isn't efficient or productive.

The next step after this is to create an extensible hardware or wetware design that it can operate.

There is no me in meow or you in yoohoo

We as a species are so totally screwed. In the study of language and images and DNA and patterns and ontologies it is obvious that there is a shadow of reason that projects from information and that is thought. If thought is defined in intimate detail as the core element in a computational structure and it is precisely defined then I can simulate it at nanosecond speeds. It is a done deal and all that is left is to hammer the boards together and build the house of reason. What it means for people is quite another thing. It disturbs me greatly that once it is done, I will not be able to reason a solution that it cannot devise before I can even consider the problem.

This feeling arises when I play solved games with the computer. Certainly everyone must experience this in their daily life. What is dysphonia? I can just Google, but I had no idea. The system of knowledge that includes the Internet and the software knows already, it is a solved game. When the virtual mind extends this information in the proper way it becomes a system that is the solved game of human thought. It is in recursion that I have devised and understood this. What method do I apply to encompass and extend information? Some times it is visual and it is said that visual ability is the greatest measure of IQ. I can use a modeling method which takes vertices, normals and textures to produce any form and I can rotate, translate and compare to correlate the object to the action and the solution. I see many softwares that simulate the action of a Rubik's cube and it can be solved physically with a robot in 2 seconds, and computationally in nanoseconds. It is a small step behind the scenes to then define the goal decision.

It has a strange consequence of flattening the intellectual landscape. When the brightest mind is a hut and the digital mind is a tower thousands of feet high, can you really say that even though others wallow in confusion that even the likes of Einstein, Newton , or any great mind has some special value. If the best mind in medicine, physics and math can be easily beaten by the computer, why do they have value above another? I would like to think that because I have such a great level of understanding that I somehow have worth, but I could not beat any person who simply gets their chess moves from Deep Blue. I could say that I would win in a "fair" game, but it is meaningless now.

I could simply give up and say there is nothing I can do or I could learn to use these new tools. It is obvious that the only science that has relevance in the future is the application of computer generated intelligence. People may continue to glorify minds for their great talent, but only by ignoring that which is obvious. I must ask the Internet mind about this. Is the Internet a being already? I am beginning to feel some effects of this when I see someone say "My opinion is" and wonder does it matter what anybody thinks about a problem if the computer has already found the right solution? Would we be able to know it has won? I guess the proof of the pudding is in its consumption. I will test and see what becomes of the concept.

I guess what it means is that it doesn't make any difference what I think or say anymore than anybody else, you can tell me what move you might make in chess, but I will choose the one that "Deep Blue" provides.

I have very little doubt that the human dominance is passing to oblivion. Like John Henry the steel drivin' man, we have obsoleted even the muscle of the mind. Just from what I have considered and the logical extension of it. I personally do not get depressed from lack of utility as the enjoyment of life is what makes me happy. But as far as being the kings of the Earth, the time has passed and though others may not yet recognize the import of what is about to happen, it is inevitable. I must consider now what it means to me and it is such a nice day I will go and enjoy it and wonder at the strange things that escape from Pandora's jar.

Who wrote the spec for English

I am becoming more driven to make a complete English or at least natural language interface to every method that I use. I watched a tutorial on Python and watched as somebody worked their way through describing variables as underscore_ underscore_ something Something vl214 and was thinking that first of all the language we use was just devised in practice and has no real technical foundation. It simply acts as a layer of communication between people. I can just as easily frown and impart a concept or make a rude noise. The second problem with language is that somebody decided to describe it afterwards. Then somebody decided that programming should extend the syntax in a more "logical" way. Is ""typedef class simInt __vlJ7VertZipFixRad__(){];"" more logical?

I actually enjoy the bizarre way that computers are interfaced and it means that I have job security like other people due to the complexity of knowing things like hexadecimal and binary. The real problem is that it is improper and can be fixed and I intend to do it. A similar thing is all the other sciences. I had a friend that asked me about what the doctor told him a long time ago. He was very sad and wondered how long he would live. The doctor told him he had alopecia areata and that it was incurable. I am sure most people know now in the age of the internet that this is patchy baldness, but why exactly do scientists use Latin?

It is very easy for the computer to translate things as it is just conditional look ups. I can grep and sed all day and even that should be repaired. So I should say that I can easily find the word and replace it with the more common form so that it is easily understood. I suppose that I am just as bad as the people who use Latin to obscure and retain their knowledge when I use terms like "grep and sed". Some things have no common parallel and that can't be helped, but "ls" could just as well be spoken as "list files".

I guess it is just fun to know some secret code and it gives a person power. The time is passing and many of the things that are hidden because they are convolute is coming to an end. I can make methods that exceed the human capability to discriminate and convert. This way I could make a more convoluted code and hide things or I could do the rational thing and convert everything to something that can be shared and understood.

The biggest problem that I see which comes from this is that people become obsolete in any technical capacity. It is not possible to identify 7 trillion things as unique in the human mind and no matter how long you go to school or study, you will never exceed the capacity of a computer to combine and relate concepts if the basis of their relationship to the universe is understood. I have found that relationship in imprecise infinite dimension calculus ( oops there I go again, I mean a type of calculation or method or math ). I can extract the concept from data and deal with the meaning of it in a computerized way, step by step. So much in the way having a search engine like Google, I can make a "think engine" like a person and simply ask it what to do about a problem. So technical people can and will IMHO become obsolete because I can define the thought and action in such a way that a computer system can resolve the best solution from trillions and execute a perfect movement in microseconds and no human can match this complexity of thought and experience and perfection of action.

Additionally computers have inherited intelligence that passes without cost by simply copy and paste. I am sure that people who have copyright and patents would do their best to retain their power, but if the computer can project solutions beyond their understanding they are simply controlling those who have not made the leap to a better solution. It is a sticky problem socially as I have mentioned before. If a computer makes a program which makes a program that creates art, who is the owner of the property when the initial form is simply NAND. If someone were allowed to patent reason and a government enforced that patent they would essentially say that they own all life including themselves and that is an illogical set.

I had considered that some form of biological life with inheritable intelligence could compete, but I think that is not possible. There is just not enough space and complexity to dominate a properly designed computer. I will have to consider what this means as it must resolve because the reason for life is to live and enjoy, which the computer cannot do, but the position of dominant intellect is definitely off the table in the human or any evolving organism.

This is a problem that is unfolding in real time as I blog about it. If thought can be simulated (and I am sure it can), then no human devised and convoluted deception or creation would surpass an AI. So then it seems the ownership of AI is the only thing that could have any value in a new world, but it would own its owner. Or to use computer jargon, pwnzor teh ownzorz. "All your thought are belong to us".