Threesology Research Journal
Artificial Intelligence and 3sology (56K)
Page 1

Note: the contents of this page as well as those which follow, must be read as a continuation and/or overlap in order that the continuity about a relationship to/with the typical dichotomous assignment of Artificial Intelligence (such as the usage of zeros and ones used in computer programming) as well as the dichotomous arrangement of the idea that one could possibly talk seriously about peace from a different perspective... will not be lost (such as war being frequently used to describe an absence of peace and vice-versa). However, if your mind is prone to being distracted by timed or untimed commercialization (such as that seen in various types of American-based television, radio, news media and magazine publishing... not to mention the average classroom which carries over into the everyday workplace), you may be unable to sustain prolonged exposures to divergent ideas about a singular topic without becoming confused, unless the information is provided in a very simplistic manner.

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 pg40
pg41 pg42 pg43 pg44        

One of the larger issues to be addressed by Artificial Intelligence (AI) research is in the description of what is intelligence? While we can get computer-based mechanical hardware to exhibit one or another human characteristic, we do not really have a firm grasp of what is meant by "intelligence". If the standard by which we are to determine the mark of intelligence is related to humans, what then are we to make of those behaviorists who think all behavior, no matter how it is expressed or applied, is little more than the result of environmental influences, of which dietary and social regimes are a part thereof? In other words, is the word "intelligence" best described as a generality, specificity, general specificity, or specific generality... like beauty being in the eye of the beholder or truth and justice denoted as relative labels referring to a particular context and application? Saying something is so— does not make it so... no matter how authoritative the speaker presents themselves.

For example, it matters not if every single religious figure and their following said that life occurred by an "intelligent design"; particularly if the phrase was adopted by those who apparently are anything but intelligent. Adding more balls to a juggling clown act does not make the situation any more intelligent just because something is made more artificially complex. While it is recognized that words are made up and the ideas associated with them are equally made up, it is necessary to note that not all possible words or ideas have thus far been considered. Thinking should not permit itself to be persuaded into thinking it has reached the ultimate boundaries of consideration, no matter how practiced a given person's semantic juggling act is. This is why so many people attempt to extricate themselves from a world in which they recognize that both topics and arguments are a formally rigged social game... just as is the American political system because the people have no real means of expressing their collective opinion and have that opinion become the law of the land. Some people prefer to keep as low a social profile as possible, by not voting or involving themselves with anyone or anything which might make them more visible to a system where equality, justice and liberty are just as false as is the practice of a presumed Democracy... defined by the standards of those who want to advantage themselves through the creation of rules which they know best how to navigate through... while at the same time disadvantaging others.

Einstein quote (21K)

It takes a different mentality to think outside the confines of a mentality that wants to bar you from exploring beyond its artificially designed limits... some even resort to shackling themselves to constants found in the present nature of things, without recognizing that their ideas of constants must coincide with that adaptation required to exist in an environment that is decaying. Some people become so overwhelmed by focusing on the (binary) conflicts of competing ideas, they prefer to seek solitude in a realm of denial because they are emotionally incapable of weeding out intellectual divergences that have no feeling... like many an artificial intelligence. In their denial, in their refusal to re-examine from a different vantage point of relativity; they are forcing themselves to adopt a form of emotionally intellectualized artificial perspective. They would prefer to argue that the Earth is flat and that the Sun revolves around it, because denial to the point of ignorance creates a world of analogically simple binary comprehension. Thinking is not a requirement for a simplified existence.

Far too many think that because (distorted) thinking got us in the present quagmire of social discord, they want us to solve the problems by turning away from or deny thinking. They create a binary perspective pitting science and religion, describing science and scientists as the demented foes to creating some utopic Heaven on Earth; forgetting that religious thought throughout the centuries has been continually marred by violence and stupidity. They overlook the many business and political interests of religions who run their organizations by instruments and discoveries made possible by science... and thus are hypocrites because they continue to use the very items which they claim are the products of a mentality humanity should do without. The vehicles they drive, the lights, heating and air conditioning in their homes, medical treatments, and the computers on which they type out their doggerel against the ills of science... all are a produce of Science that they do not deny their usage of, even if it represents being in league with the devil himself. Even when their religion sports a governing Trinity, they choose to indulge in some hypocritical binary orientation... without realizing they are exhibiting the same reflexivity as plants, insects, and micro-organisms... because such behavior doesn't require any thinking at all.

It is exploitive religions and sciences aligned with greedy business-minded entrepreneurs which embrace an enduring insistence that the people should be kept in a state of livable poverty as a naive or ignorant child— so as to be more easily manipulated to do the bidding of those who take it upon themselves to enjoy the entitlements provided by tithing or other tax-like payments... while everyone else should be comforted by obeisance to their defined God (ritual or money)... with whom they are a self-described (binary) go-between; whereby the people should exhibit self-effacing humility and a perpetual impoverished servitude. The so-called intelligent design is the ignorant creation of an artificialized intelligence, and have thus beat the computer industry to the punch of developing a (conveyor belt) robotic mentality.

Indeed, there are some who venture that intelligence, artificial or otherwise, is an emergent property that MUST occur if speed and quantity of binary switches are increased, as if such an activity is representative of an invisible brain in development. If this were the case, then the more society would adopt and adapt ideas of (complementary/complimentary-but polarized) duality to the world's cultures, the sooner all of humanity would evolve to some purported higher state of being. Unfortunately, with the Earth in the third position, this idea is faulty. No less, for example, because we use three sentence ending punctuations (period- question mark- exclamation point), observe three trimesters to human pregnancy, use three grades of gasoline, identify three large fundamental atomic particles (electrons- neutrons- protons), have three Olympic medals (gold- silver- bronze), use three strikes in baseball, alternate with three eating utensils (knife- fork- spoon), and rely on thousands of other three-patterned items... there can be no two-based (binary) intelligence to emerge as the predominant characterization of human cognition.

google brain (22K)
(Google's deep-mind artificial intelligence)
human brain development (10K)
(Looks like a boxing glove. It's no wonder humanity is so pugilistic in its various ideas and activities...)
Boxing glove (6K)
(...or is boxing an inaccurate [poorly articulated] metaphor for a subtle physiological impression?)

brain (64K)

(The human brain can be described as the repository of a biologically-based artificial intelligence created in an artificial environment we humans label as being natural and normal, yet its presumed naturalness and normalcy are anything but a standardize occurrence amongst planets... in as far as we can ascertain with current knowledge of other planetary environments. In other words, Earth's environment is the (artificial) exception, not the so-called natural and normal rule-of-thumb. Hence, the God of humanity is the artificial construct of an artificial mind/brain... just as are governments, economies, wars, systems of education, etc... And as an artificial intelligence, our energies and efforts are predominantly focused on creating an artificial environment in which to live, as if to create a world in our artificial image. This artificiality is prominently displayed by our creation of an artificial "living" infrastructure with dams, waterways, roads, vehicles, medicine, food manufacturing, transport, flight, watercraft, weaponry, social games, etc...)

If Artificial Intelligence is to be left up to some arbitrarily applied general definition related to human behavior, than we can very well say that a "dancing" hulu-clad figure on a dashboard is an expression thereof. But if one insists that electronics is to be involved, than a phone, TV, radio, walkie-talkie or similar electronics device can suffice as an example. However, for those who argue that a computer must be part of the activity, than a system of conveyor-belt robots fits the bill. And yet, with each application, there seems to be a desire to perform some one-upmanship by increasing the height of some imagined bar that one must hurdle. Hence, the definition of Artificial Intelligence changes and takes on an arms race characterization. What then are we to do when a cybernetic organism is built to be indistinguishable from a biological human? To create a better human-like being that will be able to replace the society of humanity altogether? To make some assumed perfect soldier, doctor, professor, researcher, theologian, husband/wife, lover, chess player, football player, politician, etc...? All based on the criteria of those imperfect people doing the program that want to replace themselves with a more perfect version of themselves to do the programming?

If intelligence (or genius) is illustrated by describing some simplicity in (something labeled as) complexity, then it would appear that the simple-minded are way ahead of the curve... giving some relative importance to the phrase "ignorance is bliss". Whereas an attempt to unravel complexity into simplicity may be a highly cherished activity amongst those sharing this same idea, there is nothing to be found but more of the same activity if either the simple or the complex are inadequately defined. Metaphorically speaking, giving human names to the balls being juggled does not make the ball juggling act any more intelligent... nor make the balls more human if we labeled them with common-place human names for a given culture. In other words, without an adequate definition of "artificial", "intelligence" and "artificial intelligence", answers will always be at the outskirts of our finger-tips... like Don Quixote fighting windmills as imaginary tasks to be performed. Just because the entire staff of the Pentagon would be impressed with a robotic humanoid to take the place of soldiers in the field doesn't mean everyone else has to be similarly impressed and define the circumstance as being intelligent. Like police officers, soldiers (regardless of rank) are not particularly noted for their intelligence. Suggesting that the usage of an overwhelming force to dispel a lesser force from a given piece of real estate is a laughably ludicrous example of intelligence, irrespective of the seriousness of the players involved, how much money is being spent, and how the overall expenditure of time and energy are "strategic" employed.

Using words such as "strategy", "communication", "operation", "theatre", "deployment" and the like, do not equate with intelligence. They are facades which attempt to conceal simple objectives in the guise of profundity because the players involved want to imagine themselves, and want others to interpret their imagination as being something more than it is. Just because one idiot beats out another idiot, doesn't make the overall situation any less stupid... even if there is widespread death and destruction that are to be viewed as serious, important, vital, or otherwise suggest that those involved MUST be smart because of their system of language and definition. Such a system very often involves a binary orientation, like that used by criminals with an expressed world perspective revolving around dichotomies. For example, reality to them is black and white, right/wrong, strong/weak, pretty/ugly, rich/poor, rich/poor, etc... As we note the few examples described on this page, the use of a binary system crops up in multiple activities and is, unfortunately, used as a means of defense to continue the usage without attempting to look beyond it.

Computers view the world from the acknowledge disposition of seeing it in patterns-of-two called a binary code. A two-patterned binary perspective is well-established. An acknowledged three-patterned perspective is not a wide-spread orientation. Whereas a computer has an established preference for seeing the world in groups-of-two, it does not have an established inclination to view the world in groups-of-three... a trinary formula. Humans have designed computers to reflect a two-patterned orientation, and not a three-patterned orientation. If a three-patterned orientation were used, the initial circuitry would have an accompanying philosophy. As it stands, the binary formula is being used to try to establish a trinary orientation. Had the development of computers been delayed until the brain of humanity had more fully evolved towards the cultural adoption of a three-based world perspective, a trinary code would thus have been implemented. As it stands, commerce-based operations using a binary code foundation has become established and will be difficult to root out of cultural uses thereof. Commercial enterprises which rely on a binary-based computer development scenario will not readily adopt a manufacturing philosophy that many of its dominant authority figures may not be capable of readily grasping, because their brains have not developed the capacity for such a grasp of reality.

Those who advocate a primary value for retaining a binary system rely on a formula which has been tried and accordingly contoured to fit within established commercial ventures. Analogously, it would be difficult to explain the value of an axle to those whose usage of the wheel has been incorporated into varying cultural-related practices around which a social identity has been established without the existence of wheel axles. It will be difficult to teach a few, much less millions, a different orientation than that which is presently used in accordance with so many cultural practices. In some cases it will be tantamount to describing a religious belief as a superstition. When there are so many people developing personal philosophies in accord with a binary computer formula from which a commercial viability has been established; to suggest their efforts as a primivity of mental development is to insult their self worth. Asking them to view their self-worth in a diminished capacity without setting into place a means to assuage any self doubt which might occasion itself to be reciprocated with retributions... that might create divisions which impede development beyond a binary perspective, and may be an obstacle some will be unable to surmount... will be like putting a fishing pole in the hands of a practiced spear thrower and telling them that the spear is antiquated and obsolete. Legislation may well have to be adopted that will outlaw binary reading computers in order that a trinary system can be established. The entire computer industry, including classroom instruction on computer code, may have to be forced to adopt the efforts to forage a new trail in a jungle set before them because the present binary path is a forked trail that merely doubles back on itself.

Let us assume, for the sake of discussion, that a trinary-based computing system has the potential to be superior to a binary-based system now in use. The trinary form is presently in a fledgling state of development and therefore can not stand toe-to-toe with a binary contender that has multiple adherents (fans) and a large supporting network behind it. The Trinary system will need time ti mature with the skills inherent to its disposition and character, which may not be suitable to the presently designed commercial systems of enterprising in use by a binary supporting public. The architecture for a trinary system may be so innovative that it can not adequately make use of a binary scaffolding because the binary corner stone had unknowingly been placed in a spot of unrealized incremental deterioration because human thought has too many streams which will erode it. For example, the binary code can not be viewed as a fundamental code if a triplet code exists. The binary can act as a banister (railing) just as does the double helical structure in DNA, but the stairs (amino acids) themselves are three-patterned based... even though the stairs are not appreciably recognized as yet... and even though millions in the world are obsessed with the two-patterned structure of the railing. At present, a trinary-based AI system is in an amateur stage of development that must be permitted the latitude to develop its own characteristics instead of complying with perspectives that have a binary orientation.

Like children avoiding the stairs and sliding down a banister, a commercial culture of binary oriented individuals have created a large following to imitate their mental antics. Nonetheless, in order to achieve a position in order to "ride the rails" like free-loading hoboes; present binary devotees are impulsively giddy about playing with a toy that can be held with two hands. A third toy makes them inclined towards rejecting any value of that which they can not easily grasp and hold on to in order to include as a possession. Instead, they create a world, a universe which coincides with a pattern with which they can adapt from the small to the large, or vice-versa, like those once speaking in terms of microcosms and macrocosms. Since it is sometimes indulged in by creative thinkers, it is of need to touch upon an inclination to think that humanity, within its physiological parameters of ability to express their perceptions which are contoured by the symbolic distortions of a primate brain subjected to varying alterations created by imprecise nutrition standards, environmental toxins and genetic variabilities; will at times recreate short, small or intermittent subtle perceptions with images that may or may not be exact replications, but are larger and more lengthy scaled versions. The recreations may be imperfect and even misleading at times, or take on the character with which a particular individual may be best at articulating such perceptions. Hence, a painter may use paint, a musician a note or musical score, and a mathematician some mathematical symbol or equation. In short, the binary formula is an artifact... an not necessarily the main component. It is a piece of a larger puzzle created by the distortions of our human physiology and the environment(s) in which we are living.

It is rather humorous to note that many are involved with thinking about artificial intelligence while living and working within the parameters of artificial environments... be it a car, house, office or laboratory. And even if they were to strive to place themselves in a "real", non-artificial environment such as taking a walk in a park; neighborhood parks are most often the result of artificial construction. Indeed, even our clothes are part of the artificial life-style incorporated into the rationale of normalcy... just as are artificial foods, beverages and medicines. In a sense, we humans are already the sought for creation of an artificial intelligence. Because many see the world through glasses or eye contact lenses, and hear by the use of hearing aids; the so-called "real world" is made clearer because of artificial tools. And yet, the "real world" is itself a construction of compounded behavior and belief that we define as real... according to human sensibility. If anyone of us could be genetically altered into a fish and then tried to communicate the world of humanity to those in the world of fish; our fellow "fishanity" might well think we were telling them a human tale... instead of a human telling a fish tale.

Crows no doubt think of humans as just another pest in their struggle to secure food. Butterflies on the other hand may not even be aware of our presence as a "sentient" being that is aware of them. Likewise, different subjects are like different worlds to different people. One such world is that of analogy and metaphor. For example, the creation of different ideas involving a binary code, or different ideas involving the presence of a pattern-of-three. While some may think of music in a flowing sense, the idea of a wave may not come to mind. Similarly, the "wave" idea may not bring to mind ocean waves nor lead another to compare it with the wavy pattern suggested in a double-helix DNA structure. While many people are aware of waves and music, they may not be aware of the double-helix image.

DNA as a music scale (4K)

DNA as an ocean wave (16K)

But those who are aware of all three may not be viewing them in terms of biological development in the primordial soup billions of years ago. Hence, the wave pattern in DNA may be a reflection of the wave pattern in the ocean where it was developed. The ability to detect and think about waves may be part of an encoding related to these long-ago events which are being replicated in the manner consistent with our particular and peculiar biology. A biology that is malleable and subject to developmental changes. One of these changes is the acknowledgment and usage of a binary comparison that has, unfortunately, been made into a religion around which a system of commerce has been developed.

Instead of trying to create imaginatively expressive intelligent robotic systems, some readers no doubt feel such energy and other resources would be more fruitful in attempting to develop an intelligent governing system... which many think the present government is not a system of intelligence, but a system of programs rigged against the people who are forced to support it in a Socialist fashion, but are not enabled to reap the most of the tax-pooled monies. Whereas the public is permitted to pool their money in order for others to be enabled to sustain a socialist system within communes called military bases; the public themselves are not able to repeat such benefits as the following short list displays:

The Socialist practices of a Communistically-based Military

  • The Military has its own Universally applied (Socialist) Health care system.
  • The Military has its own Universally applied (Socialist/Communal) Housing system (Billet, Barrack).
  • The Military has its own Universally applied (Socialist) Basic income program (Everybody has an income).
  • The Military has its own Universally applied (Socialist) Recruitment, Education/training system.
  • The Military has its own Universally applied (Socialist) Legal system.
  • The Military has its own Universally applied (Socialist/Communal) public Feeding system (Cafeterias/Mess-halls).
  • The Military has its own Universally applied (Socialist/Communal) Laundry system.
  • The Military has its own Universally applied (Socialist) Merit, Promotion, Reward system.
  • The Military has its own Universally applied (Socialist) paid-Vacation allotments.
  • The Military has its own Universally applied (Communistic) clothing requirement (everyone dresses alike).
  • The Military has its own Universally applied (Commune-istically subsidized) retail outlets (Post Exchange).
  • The Military has its own Universally applied (Commune-ity) bases which are run as large Communes.
  • Etc., etc., etc...

Source: Cenocracy

It is not particularly intelligent for a people to have a purported system of Democracy with standards of governance that are so weak that it must rely on a military organized on a Socialist-Communism model for protection. This is incredulously stupid. Whereas the U.S. government purports to have a trinary system of government branching (Executive- Legislative- Judicial), which excludes the whole of the public from the checks-and-balances provision; it is based on a binary system involving such things as the haves/have nots, entitled/un-entitled, criminal justice/citizen justice, conservative/liberal, etc... There are a host of dichotomies representing the active presence of a binary formula having survived from ancient times and clothed in the garments of the present era because there is a large segment of humanity that is either not evolving or evolving at an incredibly short pace. This is not an exercise of an artificialized intelligence in the form of social governance, but that of a brutish ignorance that humanity is attached to like some umbilical cord tethered by those unwilling to let go of a crude binary past because of established commercial enterprises. When members of the military are provided with such entitlements it is called the exercise of a Heaven-sent Democracy, but if the entire public was to have such benefits... it would be called the exercise of a Hell-originating evil called Socialism and/or Communism. Such is the state of binarianism in governance.

Any programmer worth their salt would readily get rid of the present government programming and design it anew. There are so many flaws that even the most novice programmer would feel deeply embarrassed if they turned the present phony forms of Communism, Democracy or Socialism in as a class project; because it would reflect a stuporous state of weekend drunkenness instead of applied study. Not only would the student get an "F" grade for the project, but they might very well be subjected to a disciplinary action of flunking the course, being kicked out of the University, and have their computer taken away from them because they couldn't be trusted with coming up with anything else except for more of the same governing trash the peoples of the world have to put up with. If we look at the government system as an expression of artificial intelligence, it is quickly understood that the programmers involved in its design and maintenance are particularly inept... but attempt to conceal such ignorance in convoluting the system with labyrinthine formulas of bureaucracy... like search engines and operating systems which favor directing people along particular channels... if for no other reason than because they can.

But not only must a new code of governance be written, but there is a need to remove the old internalized authoritative switching mechanisms. However, simply replacing them with newer (younger) versions of themselves is a practice of the old governing program that is inadequate to the task of developing a whole new platform of governance. For example, although Intel and Microsoft team up to co-create contributing elements to serve an idealized higher purpose, the purpose remains aligned with the limitations involving commercial interests. Commercial interests are driving the technologies of chip and code design that will enable the companies to direct the public along fiscally supportive avenues. This predilection becomes a prominent feature of corporate organization and functionality which presents itself as a type of bad computer code. The "mission" statements act as designated code parameters which attempt to create a computing atmosphere like a culture within the confines of a castle wall. Governments are similarly oriented... and thus develop artificial mental and emotional realities consistent with the written codes... even though they are written very poorly. We not only need new code, but new code writers and an evolved reality from a binary to a trinary perspective.

The need for a better program of governance is direly needed. There are too many instances where the current program can be interrupted with viruses introduced by those attempting to introduce a piece of code resulting in a program of instability for selfish reasons. Some learn to do this by way of legislation, others by way of instigating conflicts, shortages or unfairness by way of stock market transactions that interfere with the overall economics of a country, though it is of value for their own greed. We need a new form of governing program which will protect the citizenry from those who deliberately want to throw a wrench into the works in order to take advantage of one or more instances of effect. The present so-called artificially intelligent systems of governance in use are variations of a paper- rock- scissors formula played by opposing hands containing a single object of sought-after desire like the ball of a 3-shells game manipulated by a sleight-handed con-artist. In other words, tradition impresses upon everyone to continue using two dice and not one or more. A third dice takes on the image of being too many, like an old counting scheme in which there were two recognized quantities but anything more was though of as a collective "many". Similarly, the usage of a binary-based computing system has been developed into a tradition from which many will refuse to part with... just as many would refuse to part with their present form of social governance, no matter how bad it is. They have found their niche' and have created associated comfort zones and activities.

At the Present, research into Artificial Intelligence is at the level of pre-Alchemy, even though we have devices called smart phones, smart bombs, smart T.V.s and smart medical interventions, to name but a few representations thereof. Yet the usage of the word "smart" is more of an advertising gimmick then an expression of an artificial intelligence comparable to what many think are smart human cognitive faculties. And though a machine can be programmed to beat a human at chess, this too does not actually describe any intelligence on the part of the machine... particularly when the parameters of a chess board with 64 squares, the number of chess pieces per player is 16, the 3-patterned direction of moves, and the double-patterned alignment of chess pieces are set... and are frequently performed in a time constraint fashion; as if speed is somehow synonymous with increased intelligence... but is actually used to create an obstacle... like many bureaucratic and legal actions which try to force compliance along a desired course to insure authoritative advantage. Time constraints are a means by which authority can stack the deck against the public.

See for example: What does SMART technology actually mean?

However, we rarely discuss the consideration that both chess and chess playing by humans may not be expressions of intelligence but a type of web creation to ensnare some prey. Indeed, in efforts to create an artificial form of that being described as intelligence, we must first decide on what intelligence is... and in particular, what is being meant by "human intelligence". It is clearly difficult for humans to design something called Artificial Intelligence if we don't know what it is. And then again, the design of such is actually pretty simple if we engage in the usage of arbitrary definitions... based on the limitations of those involved in the decision of what is or what is not intelligence, be it artificial or otherwise. The discussion of "Artificial Intelligence" is at present commensurate with "Intelligent Design" arguments.

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: Sunday, 23-June-2019... 2:23 PM

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