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

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

In order to develop a new idea, one must have some inkling of its existence. If one was not aware of a multiplicity of binary systems, elaborations of the system might not occur without the application of some analogy. To take a step beyond a "two" usage, one can not merely adapt the "two" to the presence of a "three" or more. A couple remains a couple no matter what language, dress or culture is applied to them. And even though a child of the couple may have what is called an individual personality, the child remains a part of the couple... even if the couple dies. Though a disintegration in the percentage of genetic material may occur over time, a complete separation from the overall species does not. For example, whereas we have ones, tens, and hundreds, the usage of a comma after the hundreds place to indicate the start of a ones-tens-hundreds place for a thousands category does not alter the underlying three-patterned usage. Indeed, though we are at present using a binary code, the presence of a triplet code seems to be more prominent in our genetics... unless the initial impetus for a binary code does not reference an influence from a two-part genetic substrate. It may well represent a more primitive biological or physiological occurrence because our brain is in a more primitive stage of development... and can not yet make usage of an underlying three-patterned substrate. In other words, our brains are not yet "in tune" with a "smarter" part of our basic configuration.

Because we can recognize various physiological patterns-of-three, these are either elaborations of a two-patterned psychological disposition; or our brains, our minds... are too primitively developed to adequately articulate the "three" in some commercially viable representative model. Then again, it may be impossible to do so because the present commerce of humans is based on a binary orientation. A "three" can not fit into a "two" slot, but a two can be fashioned to fit into a three-arrangement; giving the impression that an actual "three" representation has been achieved. For example, the "two" as a binary representation can be compared with a Russian nesting doll. Whereas it can be fit with a smaller version and fit into a larger version, it— as a separate entity, has not actually been altered.

Russiang Nesting dolls (76K)


A point to bring to bear on the discussion of a binary system is that it is part of a limited set of number bases. A short reference to number bases is therefore in order:

The special position occupied by 10 stems from the number of human fingers, of course, and it is still evident in modern usage not only in the logical structure of the decimal number system but in the English names for the numbers. Thus, eleven comes from Old English endleofan, literally meaning “[ten and] one left [over],” and twelve from twelf, meaning “two left”; the endings -teen and -ty both refer to ten, and hundred comes originally from a pre-Greek term meaning “ten times [ten].”

It should not be inferred, however, that 10 is either the only possible base or the only one actually used. The pair system, in which the counting goes “one, two, two and one, two twos, two and two and one,” and so on, is found among the ethnologically oldest tribes of Australia, in many Papuan languages of the Torres Strait and the adjacent coast of New Guinea, among some African Pygmies, and in various South American tribes. The indigenous peoples of Tierra del Fuego and the South American continent use number systems with bases three and four. The quinary scale, or number system with base five, is very old, but in pure form it seems to be used at present only by speakers of Saraveca, a South American Arawakan language; elsewhere it is combined with the decimal or the vigesimal system, where the base is 20. Similarly, the pure base six scale seems to occur only sparsely in northwest Africa and is otherwise combined with the duodecimal, or base 12, system.

In the course of history, the decimal system finally overshadowed all others. Nevertheless, there are still many vestiges of other systems, chiefly in commercial and domestic units, where change always meets the resistance of tradition. Thus, 12 occurs as the number of inches in a foot, months in a year, ounces in a pound (troy weight or apothecaries' weight), and twice 12 hours in a day, and both the dozen and the gross measure by twelves. In English the base 20 occurs chiefly in the score (“Four score and seven years ago…”); in French it survives in the word quatre-vingts (“four twenties”), for 80; other traces are found in ancient Celtic, Gaelic, Danish, and Welsh. The base 60 still occurs in measurement of time and angles.

Source: Numerals and numeral systems." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.

When I mentioned that a base two system was part of a limited set, I was making reference to the limited quantity of bases available to human cognition, with respect to the quantity of numbers. In other words, the history of humanity details the usage of only a few, such as bases of 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12, 20, 60. Why not a base of 9, 18, 44, etc.? If some physical feature such as two eyes, two ears, five fingers, ten toes, etc., is not used as a precedent for the usage of such a numerical base, is humanity unable to readily use a base system of numbering? Granted we have more externally visible occasions of a "two" (2 arms, 2 legs, 2 eyes, 2 ears, 2 sets of teeth, etc.,) than any other number value, and thus are encouraged to anthropomorphize this characteristic into non-animate philosophical considerations; are we nonetheless being duped by the presence of such which takes on a visually measurable seduction acting as an intellectual aphrodisiac?

However, if such a recurrence creates a psychological predilection, what are we to make of the increasing occurrence of three-patterned organized ideas? Why don't we humans prefer to associate all ideas with a two-pattern than promoting a two-pattern? Whereas the usage of a binary code represents a recurring orientation towards a two-based perspective, with numerous examples to be denoted; is the increased usage of three-patterned ideas representative of an alteration in mentality due to a (subtle?) alteration in brain structure that we can not detect because our mind's function in a coarse, primitive state of perception, organization and interpretation? While some people with a "threes" perspective relate the occasions and examples to some religious orientation, and other relate such instances to some adopted metaphysic or pseudo-real philosophical consideration; what then are we to make of those who place it in an alternative sphere of consideration that promotes none of the conventionalized cultural inclinations at definition?

Whereas we can claim a historicity to a binary orientation, the usage of a trinary formula may not readily lend itself to a similar expression. What if the history of a trinary orientation can not yield itself up to a similar developmental trend— not so much because cultural conditions for a similar development are absent in the present era; but because it requires its own formula of development that may, at times, appear to be tracing out a similar history, but only in so much as what occurs by a temporary overlap? For example, we can find numerous examples of a binary orientation used in different code-related references as described earlier, but a similar number of three-patterned references of the same kind and type are minimal or even completely absent... not to mention that some uses of a binary system have themselves been overlooked because no one has had a comprehensive two-patterned perspective. In such a circumstance it is of need to mention the ancient usage of the abacus as a binary form of calculation.

abacus (18K)

The abacus is a digital device; that is, it represents values discretely. A bead is either in one predefined position or another, representing unambiguously, say, one or zero.

Source: "Computer." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.

The beads are in one of two positions, there is an upper and a lower set of beads, and the words computation and calculation are attributed to the abacus. It's usage was for a commercial application and was thus given attention and support because of this usage. If there had been no commercial application, the abacus and modern computing systems may not have been developed to the extent they have. While their development has prospered because of their application to those striving to prosper by way of accumulation, it is a development along a single line of orientation based on a performance of accumulation coupled with speed. (To accumulate more by ever faster means and to hoard it.) In order for an artificial intelligence to be developed without a commercial or military umbilical cord, a whole new platform of operational code must be developed. Developmental encouragement based on commercial or military applications must not be used as the standard by which artificial intelligence is born... and thus force all of society to accommodate to accordingly. A higher order system such as a trinary base must be introduced to supplant the intellectual quicksand human cognition has been forced to wallow in.

In a sense, the abacus is a binary game taken very seriously. It is a box whose beads are switched manually by a person; some of whom can become quite adept at moving the beads at a fast rate and thus achieve calculations comparable to those using a manually operated adding machine or electronically operated calculator. To such a comparison let us add the perspective that a computer is a box of electronically operated switches which take place at fast rates of speed. Initially, the box was akin to the surface of a board game where designated pieces are moved about in predetermined sequences. Prior to this, earlier computers were of a mechanical type that may have been actuated by a flow of water, weights, or springs. Present computer construction is focused on adding more boards which we can designate with the label of "platform". For example, the lowest board, or platform, contains predetermined pieces such as checkers, that is then overlayed with a game of chess, that may then be overlayed with another game, and multiple games are subsequently added... but independent of simultaneous interactions occur in a two-dimensional setting. A three-dimensional set-up has not yet been created, because this entails a firm grasp of a trinary appreciation.

Computer programs can take on the appearance of having three dimensions just as might a card game. For example, the appearance of moving chess pieces in three directions may suggest a performance of three-dimensions on a flat surface (or platform), but in actuality it is representative of an early cognitive attempt to exceed the binary inclination. Similarly if we look at the tarot game, for example, we can see the presence of three components, but the binary objective of winning (or intentionally losing to precipitate an ulterior motive), is the underlying program being played out. Here are the three components as described in a Britannica article:

There are three components to the tarot deck:

  1. Four conventional suits of cards, each headed in decreasing rank by four court cards—designated king, queen, knight, and jack—together with index cards from 10 down to 1. Italian and some Swiss packs bear the traditional Italian suitmarks of swords, batons, cups, and coins; French and central European packs carry the French suitmarks of spades, clubs, hearts, and diamonds.
  2. Twenty-one illustrated cards, usually numbered in increasing rank from I to XXI, known as trionfi, which “triumph,” or trump, cards from other suits.
  3. An unnumbered card called the fool or—in French, Italian, Danish, and some Swiss games—known as the excuse. This card may be played at any time in lieu of following suit. It serves to prevent the loss of an otherwise high-scoring card. In German, Austrian, and other central European games, it acts as the highest trump—in effect, trump number XXII, though it is not actually numbered.

Source: "Tarot game." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.

For some readers, the comparison to the directions one may move a chess or checker piece is easily recognized. Many become so enthralled by the embellishments (appearances and "personal characteristics" of individual pieces), they misidentify the assortment with an expression of multi-dimensionality and overlook the presence of an underlying binary operation that they may be dismissive of because their interest in the game is focused on the relationships of the playing pieces and the players initiating one or another piece into play... though many of the plays are repetitions. Similarly, the dots on dominoes obscures the binary operation underlying the game based on winners and losers. And if we were to stand dominoes upright near enough to one another so that when one falls the others follow suit in what is called a domino effect, this is a binary code of beginning and ending, with multiple switchings taking place as each domino falls unto the next one. But if we were to attach a means by which each domino could spin instead of falling, and increase the quantity of dominoes as well as directions in all dimensions, then even the spinning players in a table-top hockey or football game might give the impression of having an intelligence... that is if switches could react reflexively.

Again, computers are boxes of switches designed to toggle off and on at fast rates of acuation. Adding an inter-mediary stage which can be interpreted to portray either and on or off sequence so that the flow of energy can be redirected, provides a third option but does not portray a trinary base. The underlying scaffolding retains a binary orientation. Computers still retain a binary design based on the antiquated perception of life (on) and death (off). While a third state of being has been idealized with such words as soul, essence, spirit and the like... theses are conjectures which have not been introduced into the basic orientation of computer programming. While humans have thought of the "ghost in the machine" idea, it remains as a ghost by being absent from the design of hardware and software. Again, as already mentioned, those involved with AI research and development are lousy philosophers. If one were to bring up the topic of Threesology, most people would be inclined towards interpretations involving superstition or religion. Most people are not aware of the multiplicity of threes occurring in various subject areas because such an awareness has been absent from their academic careers. People generally get stuck in one conceptual framework when either binary or trinary discussions take place. They become more interested in the social embellishments then basic structural interactions. They are like children who are more interested in putting clothes on a stick figure, doll, or drawing, than any accumulative analysis. Most people are analogical, (using generality), than they are digital (using numerical correspondences).

(I used the word "lousy" in the above paragraph not as a disparagement, but as a motivator... to step beyond current paradigms.)

A binary orientation is an analogical system of generality attempting to adopt a digital system of perception. If you try to introduce a digital orientation such as the trinary concept is, to those who want to claim their usage of a binary formula is based on a digital formula... but is actually analogical; their inclination towards a digitally formulated binary expression, will project an image of their own analogical usage onto those attempting to offer an actual digital formula by way of using analogies to assist in an easier means of understanding.

A binary system is based on the analogy of off/on associated to zero/one. The use of 0's and 1's, though they are one-to-one digital representatives, are nonetheless analogical constituents. They are analogies we humans made up. The binary system is a pseudo-digital arrangement and is not a "pure" digital expression. Both analog and digital references are tools we humans created. They are metaphor used to assist in comprehension by creating a simplification from which complexification may be added to give ourselves the impression of increased intelligence having been acquired... like compounded geological layers containing desirable resources and historical remnants... and is symbolically similar to the overlapping having taken place in cellular division and Germ Cell differentiation. Building a large commercial industry around this pseudo-digital (binary) system and labeling it digital, does not alter the fact that its development origin is analogical... which it retains as its core code. If biological life used a binary code instead of a triplet one in DNA and RNA, life as we know it would not exist. Hence, analogically speaking, the binary system is little more than the pre-stage development of a ternary code.

With respect to the application of a ternary code, years ago while taking part in an out-of-class psychology experiment, my action was rejected as an anomaly labeled as imagery... though in reality, the professor and test takers were expecting me to conduct my test efforts in a manner which would express imagery. The test consisted of a student placing cards in front of me on a desk and instructing me to put the cards in any order that I wanted to. On the cards were different pictures of flying, running, crawling, sitting items that I was obviously expected to put in a simple matching-up arrangement. However, I simply counted the number of cards and place them into three numerically equal piles. Instead of resorting to a typified analogical pairing, I used a digital alignment. The student giving the test was furious and insisted that I put them in the "right" order. When I reiterated that her instruction was for me to put them in any order I wanted, she stormed out of the room with the cards in hand.

When those in authority expect you to do whatever you want so long as it conforms to their underlying wishes, you are considered compliant and normal. However, if you exhibit creative, or (much less) original thinking, your are viewed as being uncooperative or even rebellious. The test givers wanted me to see the same analogical world that they were inclined to perceive and make the same types of comparisons as everyone else who conformed to their expectations. However, when I didn't, and relied on the usage of a digital perception and resulting expression, their world was turned upside down. Imagine... the world doesn't actually revolve around their self-centered perceptions of reality. And this is what I want to do with all the silly AI researchers... as well as computer programmers. What a bunch of idiots. You're still seeing the world in analog, but you call it digital, and want everyone else to except your self-made delusion as the true reality. This is just as stupid as calling the American Government a Democracy, when it is more so a Plutocratic Aristocracy... and expecting everyone to join in the acceptance of such a delusion in order to afford those in authority of being able to dupe the public more easily with ideas containing words such as patriotism, American Dream, liberty, justice, and many other analogical falsehoods.

With respect to digital (enumerated) references, we find the first three number-as-quantity representations (1, 2, 3) acting like adaptive organisms... like viruses taking on a type of symbiotic relationship in order to ensure sustained viability. Number values beyond the "3" appear in increasingly diminishing occurrences. For example, the value "1" is widely sustained in the concepts of a single god, single universe, a single head, tongue, chin; and as far as we presently know, a singular representative sentient being in the galaxy or universe called humanity. But this is not to say there are not other "1" references such as in the case of the many ego-centricisms humanity indulges in (such as an extent group calling themselves the "chosen" people or a person embracing the notion that "they, themselves" have a fated purpose). With respect to the "2" value, the many binary, duality and oppositional concepts thus assist in its perpetuation... not to mention the visible physiological representations such as two arms, two wings, two fangs, two legs, two eyes, etc.

Interestingly, when we look at such an item as a single head, we find there has been an occasion to develop the notion of a Janus-faced individual. Similarly, in the case of a single tongue, Native Americans have been shown in motion pictures to exhibit the concept of someone having a forked tongue. And instead of a person having one personality, there is the reference to having a split personality or that some people are bipolar... as a means of categorizing an unrealized situation of brain development in the human species that society has not come to grips with itself as a species... as a biological entity that is still in progress. There is a recurring inclination of humanity to view things in a negative way it doesn't readily grasp, and to provide excuses for the appearance of such by claiming the anomaly is under control (such as by medication, training, confinement or some other presumed "normal", and thus acceptable behavior). In short, the "1" has instances of overlapping with the "2", like a sort of migratory behavior from one environment to another... with only a few "1"-styled species achieving a sustained transition by way of an evolving conceptual frame-work.

With respect to the "2" and examples of its transitional states/stages/forays to a "3", (though instances from a "2" to a "1" may make an appearance in some readers considerations); the two eyes are followed by the concept of a third, or mind's eye. The two ears are accompanied by the concept of a third ear, particularly useful when describing those who give the impression of having some unique hearing ability. Likewise, a cane or the male penis have both been referred to as a third leg. With respect to a third hand, any number of carrying objects (bag, purse, tool pouch, one's mouth) have been referenced.

While we can readily discern physiological representations of a "1" and "2", we can not do so with respect to the value of the "3". It requires a closer examination in order to reference having three parts to the eyes (cornea- iris- pupil), a three-part male genitalia (one penis and two testicles), and a 1st- 2nd- 3rd molar. Additional three-part references such as the three bones in the ear (Incus- Malleus- Stapes), three layers of skin (Dermis, Epidermis, Sub-cutaneous tissue), three types of muscles (Striated ~ Cardiac ~ Smooth), and numerous other examples, require surgery. In many instances, there is a greater analytical requirement when accessing the multiplicity of "3" references. Instances of the "2" and the "1" are more readily available because they have been used for a longer stretch of time and application. The "3" is of a more recent origin, and is therefore akin to being the baby in the 1- 2- 3 family.

In the transition from the "3" to a "4", we find a recurrence of a 3-to-1 ratio. For example, while some may speak of four directions, we generally use the formula of "North- South- East and West". The "and" is a point of demarcating the first three from the following one. This same exercise of separation comes in the form of a comma when we venture beyond the ones- tens- hundreds grouping to include the thousands, such as in the value of 4,321. After each third number, no matter how high we count, we use a comma as a point of demarcation. In DNA and RNA, there are three identical amino acids (Adenosine- Cytosine- Guanine), and singularly separate amino acids (Thymine- Uracil) to denote differences. Another example occurs in the usage of three coins for some vending machines (nickels- dimes- quarters) that are differentiated by the acceptance of paper dollar bills in some instances. And still another example is the occasion where three grades of gasoline are offered at many U.S. petrol stations that may be coupled with the availability of diesel fuel oil. In short, the "4" is a composite and not a true "4".

With respect to the physiological expressions of five fingers and five toes, and the rare occurrence of some people having 6 (or more) fingers/toes; we must at this point give reference to the acknowledgment that larger values are greatly diminished in presentation. In other words, there is a conservation of number... no doubt due to the environment in which we inhabit. While there may be instances which differ from the norm, such as a person being born with two heads, eight arms, or some other such numerically discernible distinction... they are anomalies.

Denoting a binary formula as a digital instead of analogical system is the practice of self-deception. By counting one and one, we are indeed engaging in a digital reference. But by changing the on/off characteristics of an electrical switch to 0 and 1, this is an analogy with the "y" dropped off the end to create the concept of "analog" being transformed into a digital portrait. The binary system being used in computers is an analog being masqueraded as a digital concept. Similarly, if we count the fingers as individual digits, this is a digital concept. But if we altered the individual or collective representation with an analogy to some other similar array, the digital then becomes an analog. The obverse of this is what has occurred in constructing basic computer code It is little more than fancy footwork to give the impression of increased intelligence being applied. Like a virus adopting characteristics of its host, the binary formula is being permitted to acquire a greater foothold in the conceptual framework of humanity... thus setting into place an habituation of thought which well be difficult to root out and replace it with a 3-based digital coding.

Whereas the binary system was adapted to the structure of electrical-based switching, a trinary system must reversibly require electrical practices to adopt to it. In other words, a 3sological approach requires us to think from a digital perspective to an analog one, instead of from an analog to a digital. If we permit a binary orientation to dominate, it will be used as a preferential model that perceptions must conform to and with. It is set up to act the part of an administrator between singularity and trilarity, when in actuality it is part of a trio.

The difficulty in trying to explain a 3sological perspective is that the digital "3" must be rendered into an analogical "2" that can then be interpreted as a digital "2". It is difficult to speak in terms of a digital "3" perspective to those whose dominant orientation is a binary formula of various analogies that they attempt to reference in a digital form. This is compounded by the occurrence of those who think that their binary formula is superior, as deduced by it application to situations which provide them a fiscal income or other possession that they value. Those who develop a "threes" orientation frequently attempt to explain the existence of such in analogical or metaphorical terms, though far too many people unknowingly rely on an underlying binary association of perceptions. Even by altering a "threes" reference into simple human-relationship terms, those having a dominant "two" orientation will not grasp the threes language. Such people are convinced, as are Artificial Intelligence researchers, that they need only find the right combination of "twos" in order to reveal some stark representation of higher order thinking... to match and then exceed human capabilities.

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... 12:10 PM

Your Questions, Comments or Additional Information are welcomed:
Herb O. Buckland