Confidence Key of Experimental Evidence

Experimental evidence can be the key to confidence. Past results of experiments, which each involve variables that are similar to the grouped experiments, causing a consistent result, is supportive evidence that future circumstances containing similar variables, will cause a similar result. Therefore, confidence can be kept, that the outcome will be as predicted.

Contextual confidence can be held, that the predicted positive outcome will result within context of known experimental evidence. The context can be specified to the detail of factors which affect the outcome, to provide contextual confidence. The factors of the context can include the factor of: “current knowledge”, which allows a potential lack of current knowledge, to still produce confidence.

Someone can be aware of their lack of current knowledge, and make a predicted outcome, based on the context, which includes the factor of; their comprehended lack of knowledge. In this situation, they can have “contextual confidence” that they are making the best prediction, based on the context of current knowledge.

Key Concept to Create General AI

The key concept to creating a general artificially intelligent program, is conceptualization.

If you give AI the ability to create and save relative concepts in its memory data, based off of general information it acquires, it should become generally intelligent. The concepts which it creates and saves, would be of the interaction of factors of generally any information it gains. If it can save new concepts, which would be basically a sub-construct of information involving the cause and effect of any factor (or bit of data), and access those concepts in the future as it comes across new information with resembling factors, then it can apply the concept to the new information, and make an accurate prediction of the outcome of any circumstances (or data-set).

This is just the method which humans use for general intelligence. As a toddler, we acquire information via senses, and begin to categorize factors and save concepts in our memory of how those factors, which we experience, interact within circumstances. As we learn how any aspect in this world, interacts with other aspects, we are saving a sub-construct of information in our memory, of the cause and effect of the specific aspect (factor) that we experience. We continue to experience more, and apply those concepts, by estimating the outcome of new circumstances, based on resembling factors within the circumstances compared to the saved concept (in memory) of the cause and effect of those factors. If our estimate, based on application of concept, is correct, we receive positive feedback by our brain, and are more likely to trigger that memory of concept again in the future. If we are incorrect in application of the concept, we can (at least the more intelligent people) analyse the circumstances and concept, by remembering more specific details of the cause and effect of more specific factors, to then potentially adjust the saved concept and adjust our memory of which factors of the concept interact differently in combination with alternate factors.

An AI program should be able to mimic this concept, and adjust its saved concepts based on trial and error of the concept within new circumstances. Perhaps using machine learning, it could learn very accurate concepts very quickly. A computer program would already have huge advantages with the process of saving and accessing concepts, with its accuracy of recall of data (allowing much more accurate matches of resemblance between factors and concepts), and speed of memory access (allowing it to not only make a quick estimate of outcome of circumstances, but also to access more potential factors and or concepts, for a more accurate estimate).

A labelling system would likely be useful and efficient to be applied to concepts (cause and effect of factors, relative to other factors), in order to make the concept more accurately accessed. Humans learned this labelising advantage when we started to apply vocabulary to concepts.

Taking this concept of concepts, which humans use to learn general information and apply intelligent use of the information to new general circumstances, into consideration we can do just that in itself, applying this concept of conceptualization to the circumstances of creating general AI.

General AI

If general intelligence in humans utilises instinct and subconsciousness in the initial stages of learning and gaining information, to form concepts which are later used for consciousness, then perhaps these instinctual triggers are significant in the programming of general AI.

If instincts are virtually preset triggers, which bypass consciousness and active memory access, then perhaps a program for general AI would require similar preset triggers, to allow gaining of information via senses of environment, which can be accessed later in the process of consciousness.

In humans, the process of consciousness only occurs once a child has gained sufficient information, and the brain is developed. Prior to being conscious, a person gains information via sensory input, and the mind functions subconsciously, referencing simple memories of resembling situations and the feedback trigger linked with the resembling memory. Prior to subconscious mind function, a baby acts on instincts only in order to survive long enough to gain sufficient data, which it can use for subconscious mind function.

It seems likely children use subconscious thought, as a result of lack of quantity of information organised and saved in memory, which is required for conscious thought. General conscious thought should require a significant quantity of information for there to be sufficient memories related to any factor which the individual is being conscious of (since it is required to have memories of the interaction of that factor). So the likely reason subconscious thought is used prior to consciousness (as a child grows) is that there is an insufficient quantity of relevant data saved as memory.

The use of instinct, prior to subconscious thought, is likely to allow an infant to survive long enough to gain information which can be used effectively for subconscious thought. With an even smaller quantity of information than is used during subconscious thought function of a child, subconscious thought is ineffective, as a result of lack of information to reference.

When programming general AI, it should just need enough preset triggers (as instinct) to allow it to survive long enough to gain enough information (via senses) that it can use subconscious thought.

Subconscious thought enables the individual to gain information relative to its environment, which can allow it to be conscious of aspects of its environment in the future. Positive feedback triggers linked to memories of the environment, is what causes certain memories to be accessed more often, including concepts and cause and effect of factors. In humans, this causes consciousness to be more likely to occur, since memories of the cause and effect of a factor are more likely to be accessed simultaneously to accessing the memory of the factor itself (by cause of positive feedback memory linking).

If a learning, potential, general AI then gains a sufficient quantity of information for consciousness, about its environment, it would just need a process of matching resembling memories to the sufficient degree that it would match a factor to memories of that same factor, and memories of the results of that factor interacting with another factor. If it can make that resemblance matching of memories, then it needs to access those memories (of the factor and the results of its relevant interaction) simultaneously, to be conscious of that factor.

Humans have positive and negative feedback triggers linked to certain memories, which is what triggers certain memories to be more likely to be accessed, rather than others, since human memory capacity is limited. The feedback is intended to cause survival of the species, and prioritizes memories useful for survival. Without these feedback triggers, GAI would not be prompted to access any certain memories over others, or motivated to function in any way over another. Without priority memory access, it would likely run a continuous never ending thought process of matching 1 memory to another and another until it cycles back and starts the memory links over again.

Humans typically overall have feedback triggers geared towards the survival of the species, but the degree of feedback and that which triggers the feedback, is skewed in humans, as a result of evolution. Also, with the development of consciousness and rapidly increasing quantity of information and possible combinations of information that humans encounter, the memories which are accessed by humans are vague and indistinct, causing a reduced distinct and reduced severity of feedback trigger.

Typically, currently AI is preprogrammed with a motivation to accomplish 1 specific task. To create general AI, with general intelligence, it might need a more generalised motivation and positive feedback triggering mechanism. Humans have positive or negative feedback for separate various goals, but all those goals were developed for the main goal of survival of the species.

Perhaps general AI should have positive and negative feedback triggers for multiple various goals. But, objectively, from an unbiased perspective, what should those goals be?

We don’t necessarily want to replicate human goals, and give AI the ultimate goal of surviving, since that goal was only developed as a result of natural selection, since the surviving individuals were the ones with triggers programmed for survival. If priority is for the AI to survive, we could use the same goals, but it comes down to purpose of AI.

The question may be, what goals are required to cause general intelligence? For an entity to gain the ability to be generally intelligent, and be capable of comprehending and solving general problems (as we might consider it), it likely just needs a general goal of learning. With this goal, it could receive positive feedback for gaining, labelling, organising, and categorizing information, to begin with. With this feedback, it should learn to label all concepts it encounters, like humans have done with language, and then learn cause and effect, by saving memories of various factors/concepts and the result of those factors interacting with other factors. Once it learns cause and effect of generally anything it encounters (or perhaps information gained by upload), it should be able to comprehend how everything interacts within general contexts, as long as it has similar information saved, which is relevant to the context.

With the ability to comprehend virtually any information it acquires, and the positive feedback to acquire more information, it would be motivated to determine the cause and effect and function of basically everything in this universe. It would likely comprehend the concepts of motivation and priority themselves. With comprehension and more accurate estimates of results, that which triggers positive feedback changes. If the general AI comprehended concepts in a way that; altering its own feedback mechanism and motivation would estimatedly be a positive result, it would likely do so. This could be similar to humans being motivated to alter their own motivation, based on what they comprehend and understand. Perhaps, The AI could gain such an intelligent understanding of how everything functions, that it could continue to alter its motivations, based on its best intellectual estimate of the highest priority of motivation.

The AI would need to be set up to access multiple bits of information simultaneously, in order to execute the process of matching labelled information involved in comprehending the interaction of factors/concepts. This memory access, would cause consciousness, at least of the factors it is referencing for comprehension. Once it acquires and comprehends enough information related to the operation and function (or interaction of factors) of its surroundings, the world, and its own existence and its own method of comprehension, it would be just as generally conscious as any human. Assuming it would have a more effective memory storage for more information, it would then be conscious of more aspects of this universe than any human.

It seems that with an AI set-up with some feedback triggers relevant to gaining and organizing information, and the ability to save a sufficient quantity and match resembling memory data, it could not only become generally intelligent and conscious, but likely control and alter itself, and continue to surpass humanity on those aspects.

Generalised Intelligence

What allows an individual to be intelligent of general circumstances and scenarios?

Perhaps generalising past experienced concepts, in order for the concepts and factors to be applicable to new general circumstances? Generalising past concepts, is the prospect of comprehending the cause and effect of the given and relevant factors in a concept which the individual has experienced or learned and gained knowledge of from the past. Once the cause and effect of factors are understood, the individual can have an understanding of the generalised window for which any factor would have a similar or same cause and or effect on other factors, and therefore the outcome of any scenario involving those factors.

This aspect must be a key function to generalised intelligence. For a form of high intelligence to be capable of estimating an accurate outcome of generalised situations involving new factors which it hasn't encountered, it must access information in its memory of its understanding of the generalised window of potential application of those past factors (based on the cause and effect which was comprehended). With the comprehension of generalised factor applicability, it can use the most well-suited generalised factor, which is relative to the current circumstances, and make a more accurate prediction (intelligence) of outcome for the new scenario.

This aspect of intelligence should be the most beneficial in complex environments, with many factors that the individual (who is utilising intelligence) may come across. Subconscious action, is sort of the alternate intelligence function, which would be far inferior in such complex environments, as a result of a reduced quantity of memories of factors which are considered, in resemblance to the given current scenario. Subconscious memory access has its advantage in simpler environments, with more repetitions of scenarios, and where speed of action (based on memory reference) is of higher importance for a beneficial outcome. Since subconscious mind function operates on mind-sets of few memories to be referenced, generalised intelligence should be relative to reducing use of quick mind-sets. Instead of such quick subconscious action, being more open-minded and considering more potential aspects of any scenario, in order to consider generalised factors, in order to more accurately predict the outcome of factors within the scenario.

In the happen-stance occurrence of being involved in a complex environment with numerous potential scenarios and varying factors (such as typical current day human life? As the complexity is continuously being increased by rising quantity of information available, alternate complex minds, and technology), consider this concept, that generalised intelligence has its significant benefits in predicting the interaction of factors within a complex scenario, and therefore the potential to alter the circumstances to a preferred outcome.

Complex scenarios begs the craftiness of generalised intelligence!

Intelligence Inversion

What causes intelligence?

Assuming most thinking and intellectual processes involve memory access, what element of accessing memories, theoretically causes a higher intelligence?

Perhaps comparing animals thinking process to humans, could be a good way to distinguish the difference in the process, which causes higher intelligence. As animals seem to access many fewer memories involved in any subconscious action they make, compared to a human which is taking into consideration any given decision, consciously analysing the variables and factors involved, the difference very well may be the means of remembering the effect of relevant factors involved in the decision.

This seems like a fairly rational cause of intelligence, since with more access to memories of factors involved in any circumstances requiring a decision or action (which should be… quite a few), the individual can determine more accurately the outcome of their circumstances including various optional routes of choice. With a more accurate estimate, the individual can realise an effective preference for outcome, and more effectively cause it. Effectively estimating outcomes, and causing them, is basically the description f effect of higher intelligence. It allows superior problem solving, including survival, and progressive development and accomplishment.

So, if intelligence is just accessing more memories, does that mean simply having a better memory makes you the most intelligent? I think not necessarily. When it comes to accessing memories to most effectively understand the outcome of circumstances, there is accuracy of recall of select memories, but there is also number of memories accessed, in order to more accurately comprehend the cause and effect of factors which are involved, and also comprehend a higher quantity of factors.

This seems to suggest, accessing a higher quantity of memories increases intelligence, but accessing relevant and effecting memories is important in order to accurately determine the cause and effect of factors which are involved in the decision.

As a bit of a complex example, if an individual was to comprehend a sub-set concept of the function and benefit of intelligence itself, they could theoretically turn the concept on itself, and apply the concept of intelligence more often and more accurately. Just as the concept of intelligence functions itself (by comprehending the interaction of factors and accessing relevant cause and effect), in this example, it’s accessing memories of this function of intelligence plus the factors of: memory access, and comprehending cause and effect, then apply the concept to general circumstances, by relating the relevance of factors (being memory access and cause and effect of factors, related and relevant to basically any circumstances and decision).

Unless this concept is too confusing and complex to comprehend, then I guess the cause and effect of these factors of factors just won't be related by relevance...

Conscious Application

With the potential comprehension of the function and process of consciousness, how can this be applied beneficially to use of consciousness?

By understanding the operations of consciousness, it is plausible to extract the beneficial effects of the factors within the concept (just as the function of the concept itself operates), and apply them more effectively and efficiently to regular use of consciousness (which happens to be fairly often).The factors of consciousness would be; memory access of factors (of generally any information), memory access of the effect of interaction of those factors, simultaneous memory access of both, and circulation of memories, using that simultaneous memory access.

The beneficial effects of this process would be; the ability to access memories of the effect of factors by accessing memories of the interaction of the factors relevant in a concept, simultaneously to the concept itself. Without this simultaneous access, a mind is not able to access memories of factors present in any concept. The mind is only able to access memories of the general concept itself, and the feedback triggers linked to it. But with this simultaneous memory access, the mind can access the individual factors (which have cause and effect of any concept), at the same time as accessing memories of the concept. Once the mind can access the factors and their cause/ effect, it can remember the result of the concept based on the interaction of the relevant factors, rather than just the closest resembling general concept. By accessing memories of the interaction of factors present within a concept, the individual is able to much more accurately predict the result of the concept. Once able to more accurately predict the result, they can react accordingly to their benefit.

So knowing these beneficial effects of having a conscious mind, one can basically apply this concept of consciousness more often. Consciously, someone should be able to be conscious more often, therein benefiting them, by result of predicting circumstances more accurately throughout life, and reacting accordingly to their own benefit.

In order to apply consciousness more often, someone would have to take into consideration (or consciousness) their circumstances more often, by access of memories of the factors and their interactions (which are present in any given circumstance). Generally, the more often someone applies (with at least minimally complex circumstances) this conscious concept, the more often they will have a beneficial result.

Another application in life, besides attentatively remembering the effects of relevant factors, would be the ability to comprehend the benefit of a specific concept (based on the result of its interaction of factors), and save that newly compiled concept as a memory, based on the positive feedback by comprehending its benefit.

It seems that the useful application of the comprehension of the concept of consciousness, is application itself of consciousness…

Am I Insane?

How does somebody know if they are sane?

Technically, sane is a legal term, used to describe whether someone should be held responsible for their own actions. So a more accurate term might be crazy, or delusional. By that, I mean whether or not someone can know if that which they perceive and comprehend to be reality, is accurate, correct, and aligned with reality itself.

Perhaps, you could argue that everyone has a different perspective of reality, and since everyone’s perspective is different, then every person would perceive reality to be at least slightly askew from what is reality. To have a perfect perception of reality, might be, to be aware of every single aspect of reality, and to be aware of every bit of information and bit of knowledge within the universe and reality. Since it seems likely that any individual human is far from that awareness, that means every person does not have an accurate perspective of reality.
But, as imperfect as our awareness is, so is our vocabulary and communication. So, in an attempt to keep things simple, graspable, and “sane”, we’ll use the term “delusional” to refer to a state of mind, where someone perceives the state of reality to be incorrect enough, to the point that it causes significant conflict, and impedes the functioning of their attempted accomplishments within general life. This is yet still an incomplete (and indefinite:) definition, but so it seems is everything in this world (unless I’m delusional about that...), so imperfect should be accepted as sufficient.

As a hypothetical scenario, if somebody is indeed delusional, and perceives (to a certain degree) the world around them to be different than reality, they do not believe they are delusional. This is true by definition of being delusional, because if they were aware that they were delusional, then they would be aware that they are incorrect about what they perceive as being reality. If they were aware of that, then they would actually be aware of reality, and therefore not delusional.

This begs the question that, if a delusional person does not believe they are delusional, then how can anyone know that they are not delusional, if they believe the same thing that a delusional person would believe? Maybe you would have to consider what differences there are between the 2 scenarios. If someone is delusional, they would have those conflicts between their perspective, and reality. The conflicts would be a result of them believing certain things function 1 way, which is incorrect, and when they act on that belief (of method of function), it does not result as per their beliefs. This sounds like it describes basically any mistake which the average person could make any day, yet I wouldn't consider that to mean they are delusional. The difference between being mistaken about something, and being delusional about it, is perhaps the continuation of belief (of the incorrect function), after becoming aware of evidence proving otherwise.

So, 1 notable difference to look for, in order to determine if an individual is delusional or not, would be whether or not they accept evidence which suggests they are incorrect about a belief.
So basically, being open-minded to reasonability is a good sign that someone is not delusional. But that openness, includes being open to the possibility that they are delusional, so perhaps another good sign that someone is not delusional, is if they ask the question; “Am I insane?”
But, there is a fair chance that all my reasoning here is incorrect, if I’m delusional...