Software discussion

[everymansmedium]

My knowledge in this area is best in Prolog. Although I have used other languages that do not fit into this category as well.

I worked with a number of products from Borland that used a windowing system BEFORE THERE WAS MS WINDOWS.

In Prolog the windows content could be put into or come from the relational data base. This makes it possible that this system might have been the development system that led to MS windows. When MS came out with windows I discovered that TP would not run in the windows environment. It in fact was the only dos program that I had that would not run in the windows environment.
Shortly after that Borland stopped supporting TP. TP went back to Prolog Development Corp in Denmark. It never again was used in this country. So my software interests went with TP to Denmark. It remained isolated from windows until 1999 when PDC became Visual Prolog Corp and version 5.0 came to the market and could run under windows 98. during that time I continued to work in the text environment while the rest of the world was playing with graphics. This was good because the machines kept getting bigger and more powerful. To a system that is based on text these systems look like a complete universe of space and speed for them to work within.
It looks to me like MS money got rid of any possible competition by paying out the cash. I wonder if there was any transaction between Borland and MS. Or maybe MS just made certain that specific systems would not run in their new environment, by flagging them to the system as not allowed.

This post has been about the origin of Prolog. I would be interested to hear any additional information and or speculation about the origin of MS windows. However the main topic is meant to be about the software for the AI development of a true thinking machine.
John.

John.

[N0B0DY]

I had a few conversations with one "nicoftime" who is working on developing the first conscious machine, he claims will be inevitable within a hundred years or so. Indirectly he was heart-set on dispoving my theory, and he mentioned that information is restricted to qbits. I consider him to be one of the most intelligent individuals I've come across, but couldn't really follow the implications of qbits.

Would you be familiar with these qbits, and if so could you elaborate on them a bit?

[everymansmedium]

I had a few conversations with one "nicoftime" who is working on developing the first conscious machine, he claims will be inevitable within a hundred years or so. Indirectly he was heart-set on dispoving my theory, and he mentioned that information is restricted to qbits. I consider him to be one of the most intelligent individuals I've come across, but couldn't really follow the implications of qbits.

Would you be familiar with these qbits, and if so could you elaborate on them a bit?

Hello NB:
Once again I wish I could be of help. This is not my following.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit

This is a term that applies to a system that is used by the group in AI that follow the idea of finding the basis of consciousness and understanding within a neuron networking type of system that is a massively parallel system of extremely large words. The single word may be hundreds of bits as opposed to the 32 and 64 bit normal systems. There is also an unknown state in addition to the 1 and 0 states. This system is a design that came as a result of studies of the cellular neuron systems of the brain.

Not all of the AI followers believe in this system. I am not a follower of this system. I believe that the neuron network as discovered within the brain is the point that a single dimensional consciousness can interface to the 3 dimensions of space that we live within. This is the point of interface between the sequential operating consciousness that we all experience and the parallel experience of this 3 dimensional space.
To simplify this statement:
IMO,
I feel the basic system is a single dimensional sequential consciousness. The parallel system of neurons is the IO interface. There may also be more than one sequential function, but there is only one that is in control.

John

[N0B0DY]

If the one-dimensional consciousness is based on two nodes, could you elaborate on what the nodes represent in your system?

[everymansmedium]

If the one-dimensional consciousness is based on two nodes, could you elaborate on what the nodes represent in your system?

I wish this answer was simpler but it is not a simple answer. The only thing that is simple is that it will be a sequential function (one node) that is interfaced to an extensive parellel processing IO system. (the other node)

One thing you should know about Prolog is that it is a declarative language. That means that you do not always know what the procedure of a task is. Many of the tasks are solved by the computer system itself as a result of facts and rules as opposed to a more specified procedure as in most computer languages. This ability is the result of the system of predicate calculus that the system is based upon. It has a built in system of inference that at times can seem to give results that were unpredicted because of the complexity of the system being built. It does not require that all things be connected and traceable. It can infer that A sparrow can fly by one fact is-a(bird,sparrow) and one rule, can(fly,X) if is-a(bird,X)

My system is a sequence of tool use that is indicated only by the present conditions and instantaneous stimulus experienced by the system. The trail that it follows is still quite allusive. There seems to be many facts and rules that apply to all phenomena. The system writes its own code as it runs for tasks that it needs done. It then saves these programs for later use in similar situations. It seem to be the learning process itself that is defined a bit here and a bit there as the need arises. It amounts most simply to be a copy of my own reaction to stimulus. It comes from an analysis of self. This analysis of self is an overall look at what is brought to my mind relative to some specific stimulus, then a way of relating the material so that it becomes connected to the subject material in a way similar to what I can fathom about my own system of interrelated data. This all came about as an extension of natural language development. The natural language itself exposes a bit of being in the ability of understanding a language.

I started with a communication learning machine. CLEM This part of the system comes into play whenever a new word or sentence is encountered. When I talk about a sentence it could also be a math input. This is also a communication and can be described to the system. You could even create your own language with CLEM. Once you have described the input the system can call the correct database program to process the input. This is the process that I call ROSE. (Robot operating system executive) Rose is a dual category expert system with forward chaining inheritance. One expert is a normal system of noun/subject category information. The other is a verb category expert that can alter the initial knowledgebase relative to the action of a verb relative to the subject. This results with a system that has category expert information and a knowledge of space and time relative to the verb expert. The more that you talk to this system the more it learns and the smarter that it gets. You can give it rules and facts relative to both nouns and verbs. The verb categories have the most profound effect to transfer experience in the form of information.

My next step with this system will be to add initiative and a set of priorities for using its time. It already keeps information about how to recognize a partial input and flag it as incomplete information. Getting this information will be one of its prioritized tasks.

It is already very difficult to follow the step by step process of this system as it totally depends on the input that it is processing. It does leave a copy of its trail in a specified database so that if a problem is encountered it can be traced to a specific cause. This is a history data. It results in a system that is very complex and containing some 20 to 30 specific named databases that each have a task to perform that is a separate isolated function needed to complete some identified phenomena. Or to maintain some information that makes it possible for a person to follow this complex ever-changing system.
John

[N0B0DY]

Very informative and useful, John. I also went to your sites and noticed something about 11/11/11...and that you're a very religious individual.

Is there any connection between that and the singularity of the zero-dimensional node?

[austintorn@aol.com]

About qbits…

A quantum computer could, say, discover the prime factors of a very large prime number in a split second, through the superposition of doing all the divisions at once, while a classical computer would take near to forever to do it for very large primes. (Encrypted codes will not last.)

So far, I think, they've built only about 3-4 qbits—and there are some problems—trying to read the result decoheres the quantum system.

I essence, a quantum computer could follow every path at once, instead of one by one.


(classical computer method—rough example)

Prime = 1
DO n = 3 TO SQUAREROOT(supposedprime) BY 2 WHILE(Prime=1)

/* No remainder when divided by n ? */
IF MODULO(supposedprime,n) = 0 THEN
Prime = 0

END

/* Not divisible, then it is a prime number */
IF Prime = 1 THEN…


In the quantum computer, every division test would happen at once.

[everymansmedium]

Very informative and useful, John. I also went to your sites and noticed something about 11/11/11...and that you're a very religious individual.

Is there any connection between that and the singularity of the zero-dimensional node?

The number 11 is something that just keeps getting in my face it seems like it is always there. It is the coincidental occurrence that tends to make me play the trend in place of playing the odds. It is also the number of dimensions that I feel is within the multiverse.

The dimensionless singularity of now is simply a look at the fact that the universe is of a size that is controlled by the time it takes the fastest of it motions to move across the total space available, in the most time that it appears to have available. this makes both time and space always comparable.

This dimensionless point becomes a dimension that is able to cover the expanse of the universe.

That seen as a single frame for in the next moment there is a new now and the old one is past creation and data.

So whatever we measure is valid only now. For in the next moment we have a new frame with all of the measurements still being the same. The size does not change even though expansion is indicated. It begins to look like a single frame out of a great movie where creation is the source of each new frame, and taking place at every conceivable point at every conceivable instance.

We talk about the expansion of space, but picture it as the result of a small bit of expansion spread all over the range of space, yet resulting in no increase in size.

What I see is not that different except that it happens here and now from the center (every point of observation is a center) outward.

The creation as it happens is time and space, the point is every conceivable point in space and every conceivable instance in time. Every now is a new frame of existence. The center is everywhere and there is no edge or end.

Because time travels outward from every conceivable point in every conceivable direction. No matter what way you go it is always in the same direction as time. It is also always toward the red shift. This is the tendency of the more basic direction of the underlying membrane that only has the one direction that you can travel in, that direction that both time and space travel in toward the macro/redshift/past

The picture that I have is totally coherent and logical it however must be seen as a total with all of its coincidences to see the value. In every way appears to coincide with probabilities expectations as well.

My work lies only in devising a way to show what I see in a way that it will be understood the way that I understand it.
John

About the religious aspect of my drive: When I began this I was a catholic turned agnostic. The only reason that I did not use the term atheist is because I do not feel that it is properly translated from the Greek. The feelings that I have now are the result of an experience that I wish I could share with you. However the only thing that I would be able to give you is a collection of words that would amount to no more than hearsay after I gave it to you.
An experience is of an absolute nature. Passing information about an experience is just a collection of words. It does not begin to convey what the experience was meant to do.

I do plan to completely document this departure from the mainstream that resulted in not only a single experience but an on going sequence of events. Some of the signs of this exist within my writing. This because I removed most so as to stop the tendency to catalog me as unstable when I first began to openly talk about this subject.

In all actuality my stability now is a steady state for more than 20 years since I first had my work documented by the library of congress in 1987. I had 2 documents that year. one was Unit Unity Community the other was called Iscando. The iscando is a computer language based on auxiliary verbs.
John

[everymansmedium]

About qbits…

A quantum computer could, say, discover the prime factors of a very large prime number in a split second, through the superposition of doing all the divisions at once, while a classical computer would take near to forever to do it for very large primes. (Encrypted codes will not last.)

So far, I think, they've built only about 3-4 qbits—and there are some problems—trying to read the result decoheres the quantum system.

I essence, a quantum computer could follow every path at once, instead of one by one.


(classical computer method—rough example)

Prime = 1
DO n = 3 TO SQUAREROOT(supposedprime) BY 2 WHILE(Prime=1)

/* No remainder when divided by n ? */
IF MODULO(supposedprime,n) = 0 THEN
Prime = 0

END

/* Not divisible, then it is a prime number */
IF Prime = 1 THEN…


In the quantum computer, every division test would happen at once.

The single dimensional existence is the man being.
This is sequential.
The collective existence is the divine.
This may well be the road to creating God.
I personally think we would be better off trying to simulate the abilities of a man first.
John.

[N0B0DY]

Well, there's a first for everything I guess. I was hardpressed to find something in there I didn't agree with or understand, John.

All I could come up with is this: "We talk about the expansion of space, but picture it as the result of a small bit of expansion spread all over the range of space, yet resulting in no increase in size."

I can't see how this is possible.