Ai Forums Home Welcome Guest    Wednesday, September 20, 2017
Ai Site > Ai Forums > Language Mind and Consciousness > The Superluminal Mind Last PostsLoginRegisterWhy Register
Topic: The Superluminal Mind

Kurtus Maxumus
posted 10/19/2012  18:29Send e-mail to userReply with quote
I have begun investigating applications in AI research of my math invention, the Tachyonics Operator, for modeling the conscious, subconscious, and "spiritual" aspects of humans, in terms of the interaction of the human brain with superluminal energy fields. The purpose is to simulate the same functions that occur naturally in the human brain in a man-made synthetic brain.

Positive initial results are reported: the operator can be used to generate an alternate-dimensional number system suitable for representing mental and metaphysical characteristics of the human brain; allowing rendering in the form of "hidden" algorithms that emulate such aspects in computer models of human brain functions.

Such models also provide insight into viable transfer functions that could enable the engineering of breakthrough microprocessors that translate the virtual models into physical reality.

Additional results will be posted as available.

Questions and comments are welcome.

http://altscience.wikia.com/wiki/The_Tachyonics_Operator_Explained



 Richter's Tachyonics Operator
Last edited by Kurtus Maxumus @ 10/21/2012 3:33:00 AM

tkorrovi
posted 10/19/2012  22:50Send e-mail to userReply with quote
There cannot be a thing called negative causality, this is a paradox. Thus, there cannot be tachyons.

 Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project

Kurtus Maxumus
posted 10/22/2012  00:26Send e-mail to userReply with quote
 
tkorrovi wrote @ 10/19/2012 10:50:00 PM:
There cannot be a thing called negative causality, this is a paradox. Thus, there cannot be tachyons.

 
Adhereing to outdated paradigms does not help innovative thinking, but hinders it. For instance, the notion that causality cannot be violated may be true, as far as we can tell, in the "real" world we detect with ordinary senses and instruments, but the same rules may not apply in an alternate-dimensional universe, such as the superluminal universe that probably co-exists with the visible universe. Therein, tachyons likely do exist; perhaps many of them perfectly analogous to bradyons.

If, therefore, an invisible superluminal universe exists together with the visible universe, it stands to reason to wonder if some aspects of our physical existence are not also superluminal in nature, including the deep functions of the brain and the life-force of living creatures (including humans),

Relying on 100-year-old assumptions (comforting as they may be for defenders of the status quo) serve only to stiffle innovation and technological advancement. Is it not better to think of the future as full of free-thinking possibility, instead of being suppressed by old stick-in-the-mud dogma?

I would rather consider what could be, regardless of what has come before, rather than hamstringing my mind with erroneous assumptions, no matter how much reverence others may hold for older ideas.

But I am not a yougster. I am old school, all the way. Yet, there always comes a time when the old ideas outlive their usefulness, and newer bolder ideas must be considered for taking their place.

Besides, there are too many experiments in the growing trend of superluminal research to blithely ignore it all, by continuing to say "there cannot be tachyons". For one thing, it has been repeatedly shown by many modern researchers that Einstein's insistance on an invariant vacuum speed of light is not accurate. All natural constants are now known to vary in time, due to the changes in the overall universe as it expands (which also happens at an accelerating pace); and that includes lightspeed. It has also been proven that all the assumptions that followed from insisting that lightspeed is constant need no longer be strictly observed, given that we now know lightspeed is a variable paramater.

See:
Albrecht & Magueijo, article on the variable speed of light, Physical Review D 59, (1999) 043516.
And J.W. Moffat's article on same, International Journal of Modern Phsics, D2 (1993) 351.
Online, advance-search specific phrase: "variable speed of light", for additional information.



 Tachyonics Implies Unification

tkorrovi
posted 10/22/2012  18:14Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Well, you said that your theory is based on tachyons, and tachyons assume negative causality. Negative causality is a logical paradox and thus it is never outdated, it does not depend on what the physical theory is. It is strange yes that some have started to say that my theory is "outdated", even to the point that the conventional AI theories are now "dated" again.

If you argue that negative causality is not a logical paradox, then think about this thought experiment. Say we have a button and a light. There is a timer which measures certain periods of time, say seconds. Now if we push the button down during such period of time, pushing of the button occurred in that period of time. Now the light shows whether the button will be pushed in the next period of time, so the device implements negative causality. Now consider that the light is off in some period of time and we push the button in the next period of time, then what the light showed us was wrong, and there is no negative causality.

I said tachyons are not possible because of negative causality, not because nothing can happen faster than light. The physical analogue of my theory is David Bohm theory (implicate order), and this is based on entanglement, which assumes not only something faster than light, but instant connections. In a way this goes further than your theory because your is still based on the conventional descriptions of physical systems, equations or operators as you say.

 Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
Last edited by tkorrovi @ 10/22/2012 6:35:00 PM

tkorrovi
posted 10/26/2012  18:25Send e-mail to userReply with quote
I'm sorry for talking here about intuition but, as you said that the speed is important, then maybe it somehow helps. A long time ago i read The City and the Stars by Arthur C Clarke. Unfortunately no movie has been made based on this, and so there are many Hal's everywhere from 2001, but no Vanamonde's from The City and the Stars. Vanamonde, when he saw the spaceship coming from the Earth, went instantly to Earth at that moment. My intuition strongly said me that there is something very essential to consciousness in these instant movements. I wanted to create an AI (True AI) system, so i was not really interested in the physical part, but i felt that there is something which can help to make my program. I started to think what it could be, and thought i found the solution. Later i just happened to see the David Bohm theory, and i was surprised how similar what i thought was, to that.

I'm sorry that you have to read this, it is me who all the time wants to explain myself here, as i feel that no one understands me. You can do the same, maybe once we would understand each other. My criterion for True AI is that it has to be unrestricted in self-development.

 Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project
Last edited by tkorrovi @ 10/26/2012 6:29:00 PM

Kurtus Maxumus
posted 10/27/2012  01:03Send e-mail to userReply with quote
 
tkorrovi wrote @ 10/26/2012 6:25:00 PM:
I'm sorry for talking here about intuition but, as you said that the speed is important, then maybe it somehow helps. A long time ago i read The City and the Stars by Arthur C Clarke. Unfortunately no movie has been made based on this, and so there are many Hal's everywhere from 2001, but no Vanamonde's from The City and the Stars. Vanamonde, when he saw the spaceship coming from the Earth, went instantly to Earth at that moment. My intuition strongly said me that there is something very essential to consciousness in these instant movements. I wanted to create an AI (True AI) system, so i was not really interested in the physical part, but i felt that there is something which can help to make my program. I started to think what it could be, and thought i found the solution. Later i just happened to see the David Bohm theory, and i was surprised how similar what i thought was, to that.

I'm sorry that you have to read this, it is me who all the time wants to explain myself here, as i feel that no one understands me. You can do the same, maybe once we would understand each other. My criterion for True AI is that it has to be unrestricted in self-development.

 
No worries. And the long held position that tachyons violate causality is understandable. But current research on tachyons and other superluminal phenomena make it clear that the notion of tachyons is not about to go away.

Also, while Einstein's theory of Special Relativity can be interpreted as predicting the existence of tachyons, with reversed causality, it is no longer certain that Einstein's formulations are absolutely correct or complete, any more than Quantum Mechanics is complete. What is more, taking the que from the late Tom Van Flandern, who showed that gravity is superluminal in nature (but does not act infinitely fast), Einsteinian Relativity should be replaced with Lorentzian Relativity, to more correctly correspond to observed astronomical reality. And Lorentzian Relativity does not demand negative time for tachyons, or anything else traveling FTL.

Now, this might negate my version of a particle that explains quantum gravity, but that's OK, if some observation or experiment determines the actual quanta of gravity. But the Tachyonics Operator I devised is non-commital. It does not necessarily require Einsteinian Relativity. It is merely an evaluation used as a transformation function, and can be used by anyone who wants to impart superluminality to some quantity.

However, I am of the opinion that the incomplete nature of Einstein's formulations arise because of the non-specific way it treats superluminal frames. Note that it does not impose the analog of the same natural limits that exist for bradyons onto tachyons (i.e., they can travel at infinite speed or finite velocities above lightspeed). And that tells me it works fine for bradyonic frames, but does not get the FTL thing correct. It lacks something.

Also, Einstein's formulations depend on holding the vacuum speed of light as an invariant for all observers. But there are a number of reserachers who are pointing out that the lightspeed constant is not an absolute constant at all, nor are any of the other natural constants. They vary in time due to the accelerating expansion of the universe. That means Einstein's major premise is wrong, and thus leaves open the question of the nature of tachyons.

My contention is this. Tachyons of many kinds probably exist, and there is no telling what some of them do. There could be types with negative time (standard relativistic), and others with positive time (purely classical), and still others with properties we can't imagine yet. Consequently, if there indeed exist extra-dimensional manifolds, as part of the Multiverse in which the visible universe resides, then there are probably alternate-dimensional manifolds as well, such as a superluminal universe that co-exists with the visible universe.

And in that case, it is reasonable to quess that some aspects of our physical and metaphysical constructs, as humans, are superluminal in nature; including, for instance, the life-force of living creatures, and the deepest root of the human mind.

I envision various superluminal energy fields with which our physiology interacts, in order to generate things like automatic body functions, automatic brain functions, consciousness, a subconscious, and even "spiritual" attributes (taken strictly from a scientific perspective; no religion required).

As a result, it seems to me that if we want to get a machine to start actually thinking independently, with self-awareness, a discernment of the "flow" of time, conscious recall, and free will, just like we have, then the machines will also have to be designed to interact with the same superluminal energy fields. Otherwise, they will not really become "conscious" in the same way we are.

Does this make my ideas more palatable?














tkorrovi
posted 10/27/2012  21:00Send e-mail to userReply with quote
 
Kurtus Maxumus wrote @ 10/27/2012 1:03:00 AM:
Does this make my ideas more palatable?








 
It is not about palatable, it is all about the same thing. No matter where we start, if we go far enough, we reach the same.

I don't exactly know what is speed of light. There should be some kind of lattice in vacuum, maybe random and changing, but there is a minumum distance in quantum mechanics and thus movement is not possible without such lattice. Speed of light may be somthing like, moving through the lattice, step by step, we can go faster than that when we take more than one step at a time. Some say gravity is like a vacuum cleaner which sucks that lattice or such. Somehow everything should be a manifestation of David Bohm implicate order, some way all things should go together. And the more we know about it the better of course, we would understand more how the nature works.

 Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project

tkorrovi
posted 10/28/2012  12:59Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Lattice, i mean something like that below. I think though they make mistake by assuming that it is static, a "matrix", it is likely that boiling substance the vacuum consists of. Just that this change of the dimensionless system happens in a way that it enables movement from point A to point B in a way which corresponds to three dimensional space.

3D space also comes naturally of course, in that it is the minimal number of dimensions where every system can be implemented. The dimensionless system changes to a form where things become possible, something, then grows and stays in that form because it is a certain level of harmony.

 Lattice

Kurtus Maxumus
posted 11/24/2012  17:54Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Further confirmation has been recieved from a high-level group, on interest in the Tachyonics Operator in synthetic brain research. They use it to model the sub-conscious.

I am posting here, on other forums, and have web-sites to inform researchers that the math is open-source, off-the-shelf, and easy to apply.

Don't let one firm corner the market on this concept.

The trick is to devise new kinds of imaginary units, generating alternate number systems which empirically represent/constitute alternate-dimensional manifolds.

Such new imaginaries are not necessarily extra standard imaginary-numbers, but must be conventionally defined as metaphysical in nature, or "actual" imaginaries, making them purely alternate-dimensional in character, mathematically speaking; with the primary forms interpreted as superluminal in nature.

Here is the math said private researchers are looking at. It is Relativistic Tachyonics.
http://tachyonicssociety.webstarts.com/?r=20121111180216

The question remains:
How do you model the conscious, sub-conscious, and "spiritual" aspects of the human brain in a way that allows implementation in a machine construct?

You have to give them self-aware minds, automatic sub-consious activity, and a sense of the flow of time, enabling additional metaphysics-based processes. To a machine, this all has to be put into numbers. Hence the operator.


 The Tachyonics Society
  1  
'Send Send email to user    Reply with quote Reply with quote    Edit message Edit message

Forums Home    The Artificial Intelligence Forum    Hal and other child machines    Alan and other chatbots  
Contact Us Terms of Use