(C) 1996 Lee Kent Hempfling All Rights Reserved KEYWORDS: Comparison, Thinking, Consciousness, Processing, Program, Brain. ABSTRACT: Understanding that different concepts are by nature different it is the preferred goal of intelligence replication to combine different concepts so they may be A)processed in some way in a single procedure (i.e. The Brain), B) outcome in some way as to facilitate different objective concepts from the same source (i.e. The Brain), C) recognized that different input criteria is handled in processing in the same fashion thereby resulting in outcomes of seemingly different fashions which are then observed to be different, modeled on their differentiation and established as manifestations of the concept. To understand that the brain performs the acceptance of input from various forms of stimuli and that it processes it in the same manner and that it outputs it in the same manner only to have the outcome projected for observation that appears to be different is to understand the various methods of input and output based upon their inherent limitations. And to understand the single processing protocol of those varied input-output schemes. In this paper, a companion to the previously published paper referenced I will argue the necessity for different forms of input and outcomes, as defined by their abilities, to be modeled in a single method of computation so the processor (i.e. The Brain) of the various input-output schemes may be accomplished by one entity. 1. The Veil of Non-Observation 1.1 Scientific endeavor can not be faulted for seeking to understand what it can observe. In this statement is the implication that science can be faulted for not seeking what it can not observe. 1.2 When an observation is made of the many outcomes of the brain it appears to be a collection of numerous things. The brain is responsible for speech so Linguistics attempts to model speech. It is responsible for making sense out of numerous options so Artificial Intelligence attempts to model the varied outcomes of intellect. It is responsible for keeping a sense of reality of the existence of the living organism it controls so psychiatry attempts to apply the assumptions of ‘normal' behavior to the observations of ‘abnormal' behavior and thereby attempts to apply theoretical models of corrective measures. It is responsible for motor control so Robotics attempts to mimic the motor movement of the muscles of living organisms. There are many more. 1.3 But what is actually happening in each of these examples? What can be observed is being modeled based not upon what causes it but upon what it accomplishes as it is observed to accomplish. 1.4 There is nothing wrong with the method of replication used by modern science. What is wrong is the assumption that once modeled to a degree of satisfaction a victory is announced and progress continues on improving the model and not improving the motivation for the processed outcome that is modeled. 1.5 In this light I consider the process of outcome replication (Hempfling 1996) as the Veil of Non-Observation. It is as if a curtain separates that which is observable from that which is not while that which is not is controlling that which is. 1.6 The results are models of outcomes that seem to work but can not hope to replicate what causes them. (Hempfling 1996) They are not actual models of the process they seek they are models of the process their creators were able to observe. 2. Medieval Science 2.1 Standing in a field at night and listening to the sounds of the grassland the observer wonders at the cause of the noise that impresses him. It is a low growl unlike the animals he has hunted or those that have hunted him. He does not know what it is. Yet it is imposing to him as to not know is to pretend to cause fear of what one does not know. After many tries to identify the source of the sound a pure coincidence occurs. The low growl is followed by a clap of thunder. The observer does not know what causes thunder anymore than he knows what causes the growl but he then knows that his intrusion on the grassland of the growl has caused it to be angry so he runs for his life. And his people begin to worship the bullfrog who uses the fire in the sky. 2.2 The poor young lady had the misfortune of renting a flat above the blacksmith's shop. She avoided the flat during the day but each night when she arrived home the fumes of the shop smith's fire permeated her living quarters and she gagged continuously throughout the night. To her it was an inconvenience. To the neighbors and passersby it was a horrible sound only a witch could make. The poor young lady was typecast and then avoided. Until one day she was shopping for bread at the village bakery. The baker noticed a fowl smell coming from her clothing and thought it was from her. She had not noticed it as her living quarters had become normal to her nostrils. The witch was then considered to be seriously dangerous. The village banded together to rid itself of the vermin of witchcraft. So the next day the mayor visited her flat while she was gone and found it to be full of stench. The kind of smell, he thought, of burning coal. She must be performing vile rituals and concocting witches brew. The story swept the village until the poor young lady arrived home that night. She was arrested, jailed and immediately tried on witchcraft. Nothing she could say would deter the judge who KNEW her to be a witch. Everyone KNEW her to be a witch. She was burned at the stake that very night for having the misfortune of renting a flat above a blacksmith's shop. 2.3 A certain curious man gazed into the sky and wondered. He noticed the sun rise and fall. And he wondered what if the sun didn't rise and fall at all? What if the earth was turning so as to make the sun appear to rise and fall? And what if the earth's turning away from the sun made it night and toward the sun made it day? And since the sun was not moving at all what if the earth also rotated around the sun on a center axis that was tilted which would account for the seasons of cold and hot and warm and cool? Why... that would mean the earth was NOT the center of the Universe. But if the earth was not the center of the Universe then could the sun not be the center of the Universe? The man was put to death by the church for having the audacity to wonder. 2.4 Another man was a lowly gentleman soldier. He had no business thinking. His job was to act on orders. Not to think. Yet he could not help himself. He thought of his aeroplane and how it should fly faster but how it could not with a propeller engine. So he sat down and thought. If air passed by the propeller by the propeller pulling it at the same rate of the propeller's blade angle then why should not air be able to be increased in speed if it were contracted with subsequent smaller and different angle propellers? He wondered at that and decided to see if it would work. And if that air was then mixed with a propellent would not the propellent be ejected faster out the other end of the device causing a great amount of thrust? His invention was patented and he tried to gain the attention of his country as a war was in the near future and a jet propelled aircraft would out fly anything the enemy could fly. But the gentleman soldier was not supposed to think. So he was ignored. He started his own company and built the engine that would change the world. Only after the concept was proven did England look at it but by then the war was almost over and the city was almost ruined and the Germans had invented their own jet engine. 2.5 Yet another man proposed to use quickly discharged burning gases to propel a rocket through the vacuum of space only to be confronted with the well known concept that for thrust there has to be something to thrust against and since nothing is in space there can be no thrust. Only the man knew the rocket was what was being thrust against. 2.6 The examples of misunderstandings based on known observations is endless. When something is accepted as normal anything that approaches it differently is abnormal. But the one thing each of these has in common is that they are singular events who's cause (whether it be fiction or the illogic or the different) is not evident by observation. Observation of each of these events would dictate the obvious based on known conclusions. As they did. 2.7 So it is with observation of brain functions. The brain, through the visual pathway, sees. Science has made cameras that also ‘see' and video cameras that ‘see'. But how does the brain break down the ‘sight' into parts in order to make a reference to another ‘sight' previously ‘seen.?' It has been observed that objects contain points of reference. And if those points of reference are connected with lines a semblance of the object can be modeled with increased clarity in proportion to the increase in the lines and the points of reference. It works. So it must be the way the brain functions. And the people continue to worship the great digital god and attribute it with the causes of brain functions. 2.8 But the brain processes vision in the same type of parts with the same type of connections it processes hearing. Does that mean hearing is based on points of reference and connecting lines? Hearing is comprised of frequencies. But they could be the points of reference. So then by modeling a system of recording sound that assigns a point of reference to a frequency and by determining how loud that frequency is and by determining whether it exists or not we have compact discs. Where its predecessor, the vinyl record used the vibrations of a wave the digital system uses the presence and intensity of a point of reference. The record can be said to be analog where the CD is digital. Since the CD is just as easy to manufacture and store much more data once again the people continue to worship the digital god when the sounds recorded were analog. 2.9 Ask any true audiophile which he or she prefers to listen to. 2.10 So does the brain accept sound data as bits representing different things? Or does the brain accept sound and sight and smell and taste and temperature and balance and the rest in the exact same method where the processor of one form of input can also process another form of input? 3. The Digital god. 3.1 What was begun for the purpose of processing numbers which can be represented by symbols has evolved into the processing of symbols that represent concepts. The brain does not deal in concepts it deals in input data and memory data and output data. The concepts are what we observe as the result of the brain's processing. 3.2 Then again what's the difference? If we intend to construct a machine that ‘sees' in order to record the visual experience and the method we choose to do so works in that it displays the recorded visual experience that was ‘seen,' have we not duplicated sight? NO. We have duplicated what was ‘seen.' 3.3 If we intend to construct a machine that ‘hears' in order to record that auditory experience and the method we choose to do so works in that it plays back the recorded auditory experience that was ‘heard,' have we not duplicated hearing? NO. We have duplicated what was ‘heard.' 3.4 If we construct a machine to direct another machine to travel in a line that is between two lines we have established as maximum extensions to our path of travel have we not duplicated the brain's function of deterministic control? NO. We have duplicated the lines we created. 3.5 If we construct a program that determines between many options which option if any will work in a given situation based upon our previously having told it one option works have we duplicated the brain's process of reasoning? NO. We have designed a machine to match a previous input and in doing so we have duplicated the result of reasoning. 3.6 Nevertheless what works is logically applied to other potentials. If it works in those potentials it is applied to others as well. The problem arises when the process that works becomes the definition of what was intended to be replicated. 3.7 This is what has happened and given birth to the digital god. No matter how many people become upset with the assertions I have made in other publications the reaction has been the defense of the process of digital computation and not for the process of human thought. I have received replies and correspondence from numerous people who otherwise would never miss the point. But they do when they perceive an attack on their digital god. 3.8 In one such correspondence I was told that I underestimate the potential of digital computers in the future. That perhaps my comment that a digital computer can never be intelligent is correct in light of today's programming but that I can not apply such to the future in oh, say, 20 or 50 or 100 years time. But if one were to think that through my comment has been that digital computers can never be intelligent. Not that a program will not replicate the process of intelligence. Just that the computer that runs it will never be intelligent. 3.9 You see, the machine is being considered its program and the program is being considered the machine when if a program is running that mimics intelligence and mimics consciousness then the machine that runs it is only the tool used to run it not the thing that is intelligent. So digital computers can never be intelligent. The program gets in the way. 4. Dissimilar Concepts 4.1 The computer is one thing. The program is another. In everyday language they have become one in the same. When in fact they are not. In the brain the processing is a direct result of the brain. As there is no program in the brain to get in the way. That is not to say that evolution hasn't had a hand in designing a neuron in a particular way and that particular design results in a particular procedure and a particular result. It is to say that there is not a set of instructions applied to a neuron from a program source that tells the neuron what to do with a specific input's value. Two concepts (the machine and the program) that regardless whether they are used together and one can not exist or be useful without the other are not in the least bit comparable. 4.2 And that is the point. For computation to take place in the brain all of the varied input types must feed a comparable protocol for processing. When observing the potentials and not the smoke screen the veil parts and the underlying motivation of outcomes becomes visible. If not to the eye then to the intellect. 4.3 The only way to make a machine intelligent is for the machine to actually not only perform the entire function without programming but it must do so in the exact same manner for each input -output. Making what would seem incomparable concepts as observed in outcome to be comparable in processing. 4.4 If a person is born blind the section of the brain usually afforded for vision processing has been observed to also double as additional aural processing. Likewise with brain tissue that has been damaged. The plasticity of the brain is the ability of the organ to replicate connections to complete a processing pathway even if the original connections are damaged in proportion to the extent of the damage. That means that every neuron is doing the same thing. It may not be doing it in the same sequence or in the same connection pattern (which results in rejection of the plastic connection) but it is functioning in the same manner regardless of what form or type of input receptor that feeds it and regardless of what the outcome of the pathway will accomplish. 4.5 Much the same as the electronic circuit board that uses transistors, capacitors, resistors and diodes can be made to receive radio signals or made to regulate the voltage of a motor. The same parts perform the same functions with different outcomes depending upon their connections and manner of assembly. 5. Conclusion 5.1 Simply put (and it will get me trouble again) all of the research and all of the money devoted to replication of the outcomes of the brain in an attempt to define the cause of the outcomes is a total waste of time and money. 5.2 Almost all of the research is in understanding and applying observable outcomes with an attempt at drawing causative conclusions from them while missing the cause of the outcome in the first place. 5.3 The brain functions as a processor of data with its outcomes determined by the purposes and limitations of the outcomes. By replicating the outcomes (Hempfling 1996) all we have done is replicate the results of the brain. 5.4 But it is the condition of the science that such outcome based effort has become the norm. Which means when a process or procedure is presented that defines the cause it is ignored. Since the answers are already known. But the answers are not to the question. 5.5 The question is simple as well. What causes the outcomes? (Hempfing 1996) defines them. Reference: Hempfling, Lee Kent; On the Ramifications of Replicated Intelligence (with internal references) Copyright (c)1996 Lee Kent Hempfling. Self-Internet Published at http://members.aol.com/enticy1/ntc/index.htm
