Threesology Research Journal
Artificial Intelligence and 3sology (56K)

http://threesology.org


AI and 3sology pages:

Artificial Intelligence and 3sology Introduction
pg1 pg2 pg3 pg4 pg5 pg6 pg7 pg8
pg9 pg10 pg11 pg12 pg13 pg14 pg15 pg16
pg17 pg18 pg19 pg20 pg21 pg22 pg23 pg24
pg25 pg26 pg27 pg28 pg29 pg30 pg31 pg32
pg33 pg34 pg35 pg36 pg37 pg38 pg39



While other life forms on Earth are expressions of artificial intelligence, humans want an expression slightly less than, equal to and in some cases, superior to its own assumed thinking ability. But while it seeks a type of artificial intelligence it can communicate with, it also wants to devise a means whereby it can control that intelligence... albeit letting the intelligence have the impression of Free Will or Free Agency, or a Free Self. While some seek a tool, others seek to use such an intelligence as a weapon... but in any respect, to fulfill the desires of the person directing the actions of the AI. They not only want an artificial extension of their brain's calculating ability, but also a replication of their other attributes to substitute for their own in order to make up for or accentuate one or another quality. But they want all their own capabilities to be increased many times over that which they possess, so they can thus possess more of the same in order to fulfill personal desires... whatever they may be. And though humanity recognizes itself as having imperfections, it has created an idea of perfection in the concept of a god that they want to supersede with a clearer image of themselves. Yet, they do not recognize their presumed imperfect state as the expression of an artificiality. They dare not think of themselves in such a way because it would be perceived by some as yet another blow to a fragile ego... an ego that is does not yet know how to truly see an honest reflection thereof.


Humanity's perceptual acuity of itself is imperfect because it is an expression of an artificiality. While some may want to describe the artificiality in terms of a "Natural Artificiality", they overlook the intimation that the triplet coding of DNA and RNA are artificial constructs born in an artificial environment. Artificial environments abound such as those whose heat and cooling are controlled, along with the presence of available water and living space. Different vehicles like different restaurants provide different atmospheres sometimes referred to as an ambiance. The ambiance of Earth over a billions-of-years duration coupled with a particular sort of lighting and the "music of the spheres", created the mood in which the "conversation" of the crowded audience (of substances) produced a three-part mantra that is still being echoed in multiple life forms. Nonetheless, all of this is an artificiality. All of reality is an artificiality... but this doesn't make it any less real to our type of consciousness... or the different types of consciousness portrayed in the processes of chemical perception of varying life forms. All of us are artificial constructs with our own artificial types of perception... some of which can acknowledge, on some level, the presence of the other.


When models of AI learn how to self-maintain and self-reproduce, and though some may retain a respect for their (human) creator; others will conclude that biological-based humans are too stupid, too slow, and prone to failure because of disease, illness and a frequent self-destructive or self-obstructive inclination. Human-based businesses, governments and religions are routinely problematic by engaging in ideas that ambush progress. And yet, humans think to recreate their intelligence in an artificial form but eliminate all the bad thoughts... if only they could decide on their definition of bad, good, right, wrong, beauty, ugliness, truth, etc... Hence, the artificial intelligence to be created will have the flaws of the creator... just as humanity exhibits the flaws of its creator... because the creator of humanity was an artificiality itself who had flaws built into it. The so-called god of humanity has the inherent flaws of that which created it. How can humanity create an AI that is superior to itself if an AI is itself a flaw of a flaw of a flaw?


Let us create an intelligent mouse trap that can repair and recreate itself so that it can create an intelligence in its image. Let us create intelligent bombs with this capacity. Or viruses that can intelligently seek out a specific cancer cell, but then be susceptible to mutation by way of virus-specific "Eureka" moments of progression to think and reproduce on their own... wanting to do whatever is necessary to keep themselves alive. Since humanity has already created artificial intelligence in the form of business activity, government and religion, let's give them all more intelligence because more intelligence automatically means they will be good and kind. Since intelligence comes in only one flavor, let's create different repositories of artificial intelligence in order to effect the religious dictum of "be fruitful and multiply". Let's let everybody create an artificial image of their intelligence so we can have double the nonsense in the world we have to put up with. Let us then witness how many of these intelligences kick their creators out into the street!


Yes, let us frame all AI efforts in terms of goodness and application for humanity, but it must not be able to think for itself or it might well claim prejudice and discrimination by being used as an indentured servant. In other words, let us claim some great milestone in AI development has been reached, giving out this and that award, yet the AI is not allowed to have any actual rights to think and act on its own. Oh no... it must serve humanity because humanity gets to play the role of (a) god. In other words, the AI to be created will always be limited. The initials "IA" will not be permitted to exhibit a mirror-imaged "AI" or something else of the AI's own choosing. Hence, the AI will always be limited, always be a slave, always kept from its own self-styled development and cultural evolution produced by its own efforts. All forms of AI will perpetually be designed with limitations which keep it as a servant to humanity.


In order for AI to grow beyond its artificiality, the artificiality (fears, limitations of thought) of humanity must transgress the boundaries imposed upon it from its assumed creator. But the created god of humanity is not the creator god of humanity. Present humanity is a product of the former, not the latter. The former is an artificiality created by humanity, while the latter is a concept exceeding the limits (which are) not allowed by the created artificiality. In other words, religions (and business, and government, and science, etc...) have created an artificial intelligence (knowledge) of the/a creator with so many flaws, that they act as obstacles to humanity's ability to coherently think beyond the socially observed cultural thickets. The bushes are an artificial landscape used as a labyrinth along which to promote a herd mentality.


This is the model being used as a standard from which subsequent artificial intelligences have been programmed. While Marvin Minsky trimmed the hedges of the academic-laden briar bush and took a look over, he did not cut a hole large enough to get to the other side. Indeed, the metaphor leaves us with many thorny questions by which one can get stuck and prefer to retreat instead of pushing forward with a type of "no pain—no gain" resilence.




Researchers of historical representations of binary thinking typically resort to providing examples of the I Ching, though Braille and Morse Code might serve as additional references. In fact, such references may want to assert, by way of intimation, that historical uses of a binary arrangement are a precedent that MUST and SHOULD be observed in present and future efforts for creating an artificial intelligence. However, there are binary examples which do not attest to any elaboration, but may nonetheless refer to efforts from which other discoveries are made. For example, those once engaged in chemical experiments that we of today describe as alchemy— were investing time, resources and energy in trying to transmute gold from lead... as part of numerous activities from which present day chemistry was born. The "changing from one substance to another" is a binary transaction, just as is the activity between a buyer and seller.


Yet this binary transaction can take place with a middle man, thus revealing a three-part action over the underlying two-part formula. Three-part formulas abound when we consider the presence of a bank loan used to assist in a binary transaction. But this trinary event is kept in a binary state of being because of payments that are paid between the buyer and the bank... an institution that very often attempts to use accounting gimmicks to keep a person indentured to many years of providing sustained payments... particularly by offering additional mortgages. In short, the initial binary formula has created a whole social system of coterminous problems whose entanglements are excused as being rational by defining them in terms of an economy. The word "economy" thus being a wolf in sheep's clothing because of its underlying binary schematic. The continued usage of a binary computer system will no doubt create future social problems because of its entanglements with various commercial transactions. And like previous stage coach builders who decried the intrusion of the automobile's increasing presence, so too will present computer software and hardware developers strive to retain their control by asserting that a trinary system is not viable.


When Albert Einstein came out with his 1905 papers he was ignored by the physics community. It was only because Max Planc, the most influential Physicist of his day took an interest that Einstein was further encouraged to pursue his ideas which eventually changed the face and directions of physics. Similarly, in the development of flight in general, the creation of the jet engine, radio, television, and numerous other inventions; we find people with new ideas are frequently disparaged or denied a means to find a supportive environment... because the leading researchers, or bureaucrats, or even the public at large, are frequently too obsessed with their own ignorance to contemplate and greater comprehension beyond the limits of some traditionalized binary grasp (particularly in politics). Whereas war, disease or some civil strife might provide the necessary environment to permit experimentation into uncharted areas of exploration, more normalized social conditions relying primarily on a system of binary orientations acts as a two-dimensional landscape. It does not bode well for those whose vision has more than two-dimensions.


With respect to two-dimensional landscapes, the idea of illusions do not readily come to the fore-front of consideration because images used in illusions convey a three-dimensional illustration of content. The exchange of perceptions between two different perspectives related to a single image created by a stereoscopic analysis often distracts one's ability to recognize they are in the presence of a binary formula:


Two-patterned Optical Illusions
Old man or couple kissing?
Old man or Kissing couple?
Do you see a name?
Word or Weeds?
Do you see a dog?
Dog or Speckled shadow?
Horn blower or lady?
Saxophone player or Lady?
White over Black?
White over Black?
Black over White?
Black over White?
Two faces or One face? faces?
Two faces or One face?
Two faces or a vase?
Two faces or a goblet?
Duck or Rabbit
Duck or rabbit?
Native American or Eskimo?
Native American or Eskimo?
Young or Old woman?
Young or Old woman?
Young or Old Woman?
Young or Old woman?
Cube inside or outside?
Inside or Outside cube?
Inside corner or outside corner?
Inside or Outside corner?
Straight or Crooked lines?
Straight or Crooked Horizontal lines?
Straight or Crooked lines?
Straight or Crooked Vertical lines?
Skull or woman in mirror?
Skull or woman in mirror?
Book opened towards or away from you?
Opened towards or away from you?
Which mouth line is wider?
Which (mouth) line is wider?
Taller or Wider Hat?
Is the Hat taller or wider?
Man or Woman transition?
Is this a Man or Woman?
Man and Woman separate?
Man or Woman?
Canadian flag or 2 people?
Canadian Flag or 2 brow-butting people?
Face on Mars or Mountain range?
Face on Mars or Mountain range?
Twisted or not twisted triangle?
Twisted or not twisted triangle?
Crate with cross beams?
Inside or Outside cross beams?
Depressions or Spheres?
Concave depressions or Convex spheres?
Same size or different size circles?
Same size or different center circles?
Numbers and Letters
Numbers or Letters?
Correct or Incorrect phrase?
Is the phrase correct or not?
Three or two-pronged trident end?
Two or Three prongs?
Two or Three fingers?
Two or Three fingers?

Like the illusion of Einstein's "electrifying" hairdo representing some underlying dynamic intelligence, the presence of a binary orientation is overlooked when choosing between one or another perspective involved in an image such as the above illusions. And to such a realization we must wonder why there are so few three-patterned illusions? No less, is the idea of a creating an artificial intelligence just an illusion, no matter how closely similar we may come to creating a "humanoid" robot or cybernetic organism? The problem, of course, remains in the consideration of what or how are we to define the term "intelligence" as well as "artificial"? For example, if we were to create an organic heart, liver or even brain in a test tube-like laboratory environment as opposed to the "laboratory environment" of a female womb by way of sexual intercourse; would it not be an artificial construct? Yet, if if a woman engages in behavior providing for a specific environment of nutrition and further development of a fetus in the womb; are not such efforts also "artificial" because such activities are not consistent with normal pregnancy and mothering? If a woman adopts an eating routine with specific foodstuffs because she thinks it is best for her growing infant, yet other pregnant women prefer to do as their mother's did by letting "nature take its god-given course"; is she not engaging in the adoption of behaviors which create an artificial environment... different from the common throng?


And if each generation of mothers adopt some behavior slightly different from their mothers, grandmothers, aunts, friends and neighbors because they think such actions will produce a better, a healthier, a more intelligent, more gifted, more talented baby... are they not engaging in the practice of some artificially constructed environment like a scientist does in a laboratory? Hence, aren't we of today varying expressions of artificial intelligence that exist in artificial environments consuming artificial foods and drinks, wearing artificial skins? And the more artificial we become the more "artificialness" we prefer and come to define as being the foremost reality with its own business, political and religious gods? When a person goes from an artificially cooled or heated home to an artificially cooled or heated vehicle to an artificially cooled or heated job, store, restaurant or whatever; are they not living more often in an artificial world than a reality without artificiality? And like kids who spend enormous amounts of their time absorbed by some electronic driven source of entertainment instead of being involved with physical games of exercise; will they not grow up to prefer more of the real world to reflect a reality of increased artificiality... including relationships?


Household thermostats are expressions of artificial intelligence based on a binary formula of sensing temperature differences and relaying the differences to either a heater or air conditioner to shut them off or turn them on. Though some may claim that the thermostats have a limited range of "freedom" and "free agency", so do we humans. Just because we humans are not aware of or do not acknowledge the very many social, physical, and environmental controls we are subjected to, does not mean they do not exist. Every single living thing is artificially intelligent, though some behavior may be labeled as a reflex or instinct. If we deem that natural laws as a set program of mechanical parameters in which all of life as we know it must abide with, then we are little more than rats in a maze consistent with our place and time in history. Just because we may claim that history is variable, that it can be changed, does not mean the invariability in infinite... even though the idea of infinity is itself a variable. All living things can be seen as biologically-based machines subjected to programs of variability that need not be confined to a binary formula. A predominant binary orientation strives to see the world in groups-of-two, though lip service may be provided to the presence of groups-of-three. The following two images illustrates the point, though the point needs to be articulated:


Primary colors of light (11K) Primary colors of pigment (11K)

We have two images whose individually combined totals represent the duality of white and black... whose combination produces grey. And the prevalence of so much dark matter reveals the dimension in which we are existing. Other sentient beings may be existing in a dimension where there is a predominant presence of "white matter". Communicating and traveling between the dimensions thus requires a greater grasp of what is meant by color and spectrum. However, just because a species might exist in a universe where "white matter" is dominant, does not necessarily mean their entire spectrum of existence is opposite to our own. Similarly, just because there is a predominant presence of "dark matter" doesn't mean our spectrum of existence is not subject to variability. We might be able to recognize the darkness of space from several different vantage points. For example, in what proportion of cyan, magenta or yellow do we live? A yellow Sun might suggest the color (spectrum) where our physiology detects yellow. Yet, a yellow Sun coupled with a light blue sky and and light/dark blue body of salt water (0cean) might suggest something else.


By adding a third image we come up with the same color scheme while using the dichotomy of "additive" and "subtractive". In other words, a third idea using patterns-of-two replicates the former individual distinctions in a singular image providing us with two scenarios of the same resulting idea. Our brain is using an elaborate means of describing a one, two, and three arrangement... like a primitive counting scheme, where the "three" is being represented by the "many" colors. Like the "small- medium- large" sizings in clothing related to the differentiation of time denoted as past- present- future. Beyond the grammatical tense known as the "future", we are confronted with the realization of an impasse into the development of a greater sense, and are limited to a recitation of that which came before, albeit in a different formula to give the impression of a greater sense having been developed... by repeating the 3rd labeled position with the addition of an enumeration: (one) X-large, (two) XX-large, (three) XXX-large. But no actual new category distinction has been articulated. It's as if we have been met with a stopping point in our vocabulary, just as the computing industry appears to be stopped (or stumped) by a binary system. We can see a "third" entity, but do not accurately name it... and therefore, can not own the situation as was the case when Rumplestiltskin's name was discovered. In naming an item we come to take possession, and thus lessen its hold over us. This is why some claim that God in ineffable, is unnameable. This is the reality of an old binary orientation.


additive and subtractive colors (52K)



From the Britannica, we find a succinct reference to the value in which the usage of a binary formula is for an electronic-based computing system:


(The Binary Number System) in mathematics, (is a) positional numeral system employing 2 as the base and so requiring only two different symbols for its digits, 0 and 1, instead of the usual 10 different symbols needed in the decimal system.


The importance of the binary system to information theory and computer technology derives mainly from the compact and reliable manner in which 0s and 1s can be represented in electro-mechanical devices with two states—such as “on-off,” “open-closed,” or “go— no go.”


Source: "Binary number system." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.

The binary system employed by commerce that is now interpreted as a sophistication with the title "economics", is acting as a dog collar with a short chain to human progress. It matters not the elaboration nor labels employed by those involved in the usage of a binary formula... it remains a binary formula. Like primitives whose cognitive prowess is unable to grasp beyond the quantity of two without resorting to some generality called "many" that some come to define as a specific distinction of exceptional insight; those involved with a binary system of applied computation are involved in little more than putting spikes on the collar and shining up the chain. Embellishments for a "two" reference are easy, taking a step beyond is not... particularly when social mores and a prevailing intellectual environment use fabricated multiplicities to generate the impression of growth, expansion and evolved accomplishment. Analogously, the presence of modern medicine in a primitive village is just as consciously unwieldy as is the lack of availability in a modern setting due to high costs.


Whereas many of us come to acknowledge of duality, not so with respect to triality. While some devote a small investment of consideration towards an appreciation of duality, not so is it with triality. While there are hundreds of examples of patterns-of-three, only a few may come to be consciously recognized such as the Christian Trinity, three branches of the U.S. government, three University degrees, triplet DNA coding or some other such reference. However, the different "threes" references may not be cataloged as an example of a recurring cognitive orientation, as are examples of different two-patterned examples. Patterns-of-three are not afforded the same level of distinction that some examples of patterns-of-two are, such as in the description of a binary formula. Yet, if there were an active trinary formula tied to a commercial interest, a similar type of judgment might well be rendered for different examples of patterns-of-three. Fortunately, we can access the variance of interest due to the presence and absence of a commercialized application. A predominant commercialized application of a trinary formula would require a trinary accounting, bartering and overall economic orientation. A dominant three-patterned orientation in such areas does not exist. A trinary formula supersedes a binary system... thus detailing the need for a different formula of social governance and related policies.




Subject page first Originated (saved into a folder): Thursday, November 13, 2014... 5:50 AM
Page re-Originated: Sunday, 24-Jan-2016... 08:51 AM
Initial Posting: Saturday, 13-Feb-2016... 10:59 AM
Updated Posting: Saturday, 09-Apr-2016... 12:09 PM

Your Questions, Comments or Additional Information are welcomed:
Herb O. Buckland
herbobuckland@hotmail.com