How can we alter the state of affairs?

I have completed the work needed to place the answer to this question on a proper analytical foundation through the research and development that has been done since I started my project in 1985.

I am now seeking software and business entrepreneurs to implement the world's first completely autonomous (i.e., algorithmic) system of reasoning. As unbelievable as it may sound, it is expected that this software will be the "thinking-reasoning" brain of future androids and robots of every conceivable kind. This is the very first time and the first place that I have made this announcement. I will begin looking for people and interest here in Gainesville before I make this announcement elsewhere.

As it is quite a bold claim, I have included the schematic to the methodology and the abstract to the monograph I have written, below, so that anyone familiar with the subject of reasoning will see it is no hoax:

Abstract

This is a monograph on the subject of a Causal Explanation Methodology (CEM) that has been developed along side other AI technology in the last few decades. Given the fact that most AI researchers today are resigned to a probabilistic sense of causality, the paper illustrates the major difference in observing statistical effects (ascertaining the probability to support a statistical inference), and actually using inference and know-how to interpret one's environment and instantiate a cognitive plan. Such a plan is integral to autonomous interventions in the natural state of affairs. The claim is it is necessary to know-how and what to change or manipulate in the structural environment in order to control the outcome. Despite rejection of causal claims by many scientists, it is a simple and non-controversial notion of causality that an intervention on X with respect to Y changes the value of X in such a way that if any change occurs in Y, it occurs only as a result of the change in the value of X and not from some other source. CEM can be understood as a methodology that informs or tells us what we want to know, given a desired or expected outcome. CEM identifies and explains the structural elements and equations minimally necessary for any intervention into the given state of affairs to alter, manipulate or otherwise directly and successfully instrument the outcome.

Here is the schematic for inferential reasoning:

This bold claim is backed up by 30-years of R&D and model testing. The monograph explaining the inputs and outputs and giving examples can be obtained from me by emailing your interest in the project.

I hope to keep this project in Gainesville, but I am anxious now to proceed. Just getting to this final phase of the project has taken a grueling number years.

Ken Ewell

1 member likes this

Comment

You need to be a member of GAINnet to add comments!

Join GAINnet

Comment by Ken Ewell on January 27, 2012 at 11:12pm: I have answered your questions, Roy and Keith and for everyone at: the GAIN blog entry "Core Features and Purpose of CEM," here, and at my personal blog:http://mitioke.posterous.com/96533160#

Comment by Roy Wagner on January 24, 2012 at 11:37pm: Overwrote the previous post.

Comment by Roy Wagner on January 24, 2012 at 11:29pm: That's why I said good or bad is (relative), I have a son he's now 21, I gave him some social skills but like most of us he learned the hard way who and how much he can trust another ((intelligent) being.

What many of his Limitations are and that he can at any time ask for my Advice or Help and Understanding, He will always have my love and has already made me proud.

I am not being critical of your work I can't understand it well enough to criticize your science.

I was wondering how you are going to apply it, what systems will be controlled by it,

You cannot tell any man what he must do or force him to if he chooses not to comply he has free will even to choose to die for what he believes.

Christians being eaten by Lions ( too many Lion references), Tibetan Monks who set themselves on fire, US Marines hitting the beach.

I was curious what is it for?

"CEM can be understood as a methodology that informs or tells us what we want to know, given a desired or expected outcome. CEM identifies and explains the structural elements and equations minimally necessary for any intervention into the given state of affairs to alter, manipulate or otherwise directly and successfully instrument the outcome.. "

The goal of most Statisticians is to mold the data to prove a certain outcome, by asking specific questions and purposefully not asking others.

Bias in the choices given in a basic program only so many sub-routines to choose from only so many commands at your disposal.

If a program is given the ability to right its own sub-routines and command structure how long before we are to dumb and to slow to observe it's actions.

Never mind figure out what actions it has decided to take.

Could it get frustrated, annoyed, suicidal, infatuated, is there a Computer Shrink on Call?

Computers now make billions of decisions a second, We might take a second or a minute or two.

There are millions of neurons firing, cross referencing all of our previous experiences and results.

the unknown is often just assumed and results vary how does your program do it? Guess that is.

I really wanted to know what your practical use for this was how you see a thinking system benefiting us mere humans or would a real thinking system be more interested in benefiting it's (self)

It can be immortal compared to us short lived, ugly bags of mostly water (Star Trek). It could be H.A.L. 2001 or a Demon Seed ( Susan Harris (Julie Christie) is in a troubled marriage with Alex (Fritz Weaver), a scientist. When Alex moves out of their luxurious home, which is run by the super computer "Proteus" that Alex created, Susan becomes trapped by "Proteus", who is becoming more powerful by the day. Locked in her home with no communication with the outside world, Susan tries everything she can to free herself from the prison that she's in, but to no avail. "Proteus" inseminates Susan in a "rape" like fashion, and in the end, a part human, part super computer "baby" emerges from an incubator pod in the basement "Courtesy retrojunk.com")

Input I need Input,

Number 5, one of a group of experimental military robots, undergoes a sudden transformation after being struck by lightning. He develops self-awareness, consciousness, and a fear of the reprogramming that awaits him back at the factory. With the help of a young woman, Number 5 tries to evade capture and convince his creator that he has truly become alive.

Faced with these and may other possibly exaggerated but possible and probable, intelligent machine Oopses.

The USAF are all ready talking of Autonomous drones capable of firing its weapons in self defense or at targets of opportunity that fit it's mission profile.

That is the question I

Comment by Ken Ewell on January 24, 2012 at 4:22pm: No one, at least not me, is talking about thinking for thinking's sake. Thoughts, rightly understood, are like dead pictures of a living reality. In his "spiritual science," the Austrian social thinker and mover Rudolph Steiner wrote about the pictures painted by words: " It is the dead picture. But this dead picture proceeds from the work of the greatest painter -- from the very Cosmos. It is true that the life remains out of it. If it did not, the Ego of man could not unfold. Nevertheless, the full content of the Universe, in all its greatness, is contained within this picture."

Do you have kids Roy? What inspires them? How do they know good from bad? It is not artificial coherence. It is not agreement with labels. Agreeing with good and bad is artificial if one does not think about with goes with good and what goes with bad. What is resilient and what is label. What is invariant and what is compounded or sophist.

There us nothing uncertain about "exact thought" it is a simple contradiction of terms and logic. We are not talking about quantum reality here. This is about the invariant, regular and certain existence of a thing. Schrödinger would turn-away as it is not his science, element or field here. It is senseless to equate thinking with predicting the future. No one can predict the future. The past is not worth worrying about. Anyone can deal with the present, if they choose to think about what is happening and ways to make what happens more agreeable and enjoyable.

Comment by Roy Wagner on January 24, 2012 at 7:46am: Thinking for Thinking's sake? What are it's Goals What Inspires It, What if it does not know good from bad (which is relative) what tips it's balance. How many it's do you envisage how many choices will it make for us can we object or decline.

I am not by any means a mathematician so I cannot follow your Aurgments however artificial intelligence is just that.

A lion will kill you and eat you that's what it and its intelligence is designed to do it's not an evil sadistic lion it's a hungry one.

What kind of mind do you create what will you teach it can you correct it?

Can you predict what about reactions to outside forces, random events, mutation, chance.

Shrodingers Cat had kittens.

Comment by Ken Ewell on January 23, 2012 at 10:24pm: No -- to @Roy Wagner. I can but will not program Roy Wagner or anyone else. That is called brainwashing or "Ascribed Coherence" as I posted below to answer @Keith E. McInnis. I want to liberate Roy Wagner and Keith by showing how exact thinking driven by "Resilient Coherence" can be used to resolve the present and make concrete plans to achieve future effects. As you can see in the chart about the "two kinds of coherence" posted earlier.

You are SPOT ON, Roy Wagner, about "Autonomous Thinking." It can "give the individual the control necessary to adapt, resolve, modify, or change his or her future." In that sense it is nothing short of superior. There is a caveat though, but this is not the place to say what that is other than it is a caveat in the normal sense of the word.

There are also two kinds of recognition Roy and Keith and everyone. Richard Ballard (he passed away several years ago) and others (e.g., Neuroscienctist Karl Pribham, and his student Paul Pruitt with whom I collaborate) have seen that regularity of the composition of primitives should be expected; and that by separating the question of invariance recognition from compound recognition (not out-of-line with the "unifying logical vision" of C S Pierce) we create a perceptual system which will "see" events of certain types.

What we (what I) "see" are physical symbol-causing events to be processed by means of established psychological practices and interpretive procedures. These practices (in the aggregate) are characterized according to Bayes Theorem and addressed with Bayesian nets (with Perl's do(x) operator. However, in the individual -- the processes and procedures are characterized by exact thought using elementary elements, boundaries and conditions, and a method of algorithmic procedural induction and rational deduction to "discover" (structurally invariant) "interpretations" or attain the "recognition" that "fits" within present and given semantic fields.

This is done using "Resilient Coherence" -- by cohering to a "unifying principle of inter-process control." The caveat is what you already know. There is no absolute control over the future. There is no controller (similar/not same as relativity). You are only as good as your recognition and interpretation (which needs to be fine-tuned like a radio receiver).

Also you need endurance as the critical thinking and the type of self-analysis needed to escape identity crises is not easy or quick to master.

Tom Adi this natural law or first principle when we studied the diachronic distribution of word root and stem structures from Ancient tongues up through American English. Asimov was brilliant but Dr. Tom Adi has degrees in modern computer and management science. He is a rigorous scientist's scientist. He is also a religious scholar and converses in dozen languages and dialects.

How do you add the soul? Its just like they say at progresso. I'ts in the sauce.

Thanks Roy, for asking such humane and insightful questions. I hope I gave deserving answers.

-Ken

Comment by Roy Wagner on January 23, 2012 at 5:36am: Asimov was introducing an idea of how autonomous thinking, extremely powerful and in many ways superior to us could be controlled.

Thereby removing peoples fear of man creating something like a skynet/terminator how do you add a soul to your new thinking proccess? how do you add morals? how do you add love or mercy.

Can you program that in Roy Wagner

Comment by Keith E. McInnis on January 18, 2012 at 3:42pm: Takes me back to early neural network days and the promises of same. Asimov positronic brain still seems so far away..

Comment by Ken Ewell on December 18, 2011 at 4:59pm: If by 'self aware' you mean "conscious', I am not claiming that. I am not sure this reasoning leads to consciousness. This method of reasoning yields the sort of information needed to make a successful plan to order, alter or manipulate your environment. Does information about the weather (such that it affects your actions) make you conscious? Slightly, maybe (of the state of the weather). Does it make you any more conscious than you already are? If the information is that your day will be filled with thunder and lightening storms, you may alter your plans or carry an umbrella, but it has little to do (or so it seems) with what makes you conscious. It seems to me that being caught unawares has just as much claim to causing consciousness as becoming aware of how to alter or manipulate your environment.

What we are close to are self-modeling systems -- systems that can model their present, past and future environment.... !