Criteria of the human mind, from the point of view of one programmer
Consciousness. Many copies broken on this topic. We are inspired by the jerk of digital technology and the growth of computing power with caution we expect the appearance of the first artificial intelligence. As it will be? Perhaps in some garage, someone's computer will display the question: "Who am I?". Or the mega corporation of good / evil will put a big black box on its sidelines, which from time to time will secretly take all the decisions in this corporation ... I do not have a very rich imagination, and therefore I’ll leave thinking up options for creating AI for futurologists, script writers and writers. Although I think that anyone who is at least a little connected with programming or microelectronics once thought, and how he, this same AI, should work. And here disputes and conjectures begin ... AI is a special software, or a special device architecture ...
Like everyone else, I sometimes go to work / from work, fall into the halls of my consciousness and think about the eternal questions that torment the best minds of humanity. This article is not an article in its broadest sense, but simply my attempt to fix the printed word and somewhat structure the swarm of thoughts in my head. As the saying goes: "If you want to understand something, tell it to another." I originally wrote this text for myself, so in some places thoughts can be torn, crumpled and maybe even without logic. If not scared, I ask under the cat.
So. "I think - it means I exist." How true is this? The snail exists, but it does not think. Thinks more precisely, but not as a person. Well, everything is complicated. The snail has no brain at all. There is a set of nerves (ganglia). Something about 20k neurons.
Actually she can not think by definition. But, nevertheless, it exists. Its existence is primitive, subordinate not even to instincts, but to something deeper. The essence of its existence, I think I do not even need to explain. It is not much advanced, from single-celled. And yet, advanced. She can control her body, receive information about the outside world, mate, distinguish between edible and inedible. Purely theoretically, if we create a neural network for 20k neurons that exactly replicates the cochlear nervous system, will it decide what it needs to eat and mate? I think no. Without some initial impulse and algorithm, it will remain a pile of metal. But here it is reasonable to note that unicellular and even plants also have a thirst for nutrition and reproduction. Although this is happening because "this has historically been the case." Because so in the process of evolution, genes were assembled, which in the initial chaos formed into insane combinations, giving rise to Goldberg's biological machines. There were only the best, namely survivable. But it's not about that. We have a fact. Living beings with varying degrees of intelligence and consciousness. All of them are subordinated to the original instincts, namely, to allow their genome to survive. But a reasonable person considers himself. What are the criteria for reason? Although it is closer to philosophy and epistemology, and, nevertheless, for myself I will try to highlight key concepts and decide which of these criteria is more important. Living beings with varying degrees of intelligence and consciousness. All of them are subordinated to the original instincts, namely, to allow their genome to survive. But a reasonable person considers himself. What are the criteria for reason? Although it is closer to philosophy and epistemology, and, nevertheless, for myself I will try to highlight key concepts and decide which of these criteria is more important. Living beings with varying degrees of intelligence and consciousness. All of them are subordinated to the original instincts, namely, to allow their genome to survive. But a reasonable person considers himself. What are the criteria for reason? Although it is closer to philosophy and epistemology, and, nevertheless, for myself I will try to highlight key concepts and decide which of these criteria is more important.
Well, first of all, self-consciousness, i.e. the ability to distinguish oneself from the rest of the world. Understanding your place in the world and society. I guess it had to be said. However, this is nonsense. Self-consciousness is a beautiful word, invented in order to amuse one’s human ego. This term is as meaningless as pretentious. Look the dog in the eye and say that he is not aware of his place in the world. Or a place in the pack. But is she rational? Definitely not. In principle, I was a bit hilarious here, and those who were at least a little interested in the theory of rationality understood that this point was rather trolling, because no serious research on the theory of mind uses such a concept as “self-knowledge” as a criterion of rationality. But too many of my opponents on this issue used this concept. Too many ... But let's not talk about sad things. Lets go leter.
The second point (and essentially the first) is abstract thinking. Here it is very difficult to argue. Abstract thinking, in fact, is a pillar of mind. I want to pay attention: ABSTRACT. Because later in the term is the word thinking. That in itself gives us the groundwork for sophistry and to conclude that not only man is capable of thinking. I probably refrain from giving the definition of abstract thinking. I think everyone understands it. And even if there are discrepancies in definitions - this is also the seed of abstract thinking. Well, if there is no understanding, then without panic, I will return to it further.
The third point is the ability to control oneself and suppress one's “animal” ego.
I will not even dwell on further points, because there are already sent messages from the first three (two) such as: Objectivity of perception of the surrounding world, creative thought, Degree of suppression of instincts, Rationality of thinking, Mind control over emotions, ability to think logically and blah, blah, blah I apologize, there are a lot of different criteria for a great deal of thought, almost all sucked from the finger and at best not based on "spirituality." And I do not have much control over emotions ... Apparently I am not intelligent ...
Summing up the summary of what has already been said, I want to stop focusing precisely on abstract thinking and the suppression of the “animal me”. (Actually, I ignored everything else).
In the broadest sense, abstract thinking is the ability to perceive the world without the world itself. That is, through some of his intermediaries. I have never seen live CME in my life, but I know what it is. I also did not see an elephant. But I think when I see, I understand that it is he, and not a kangaroo, which I also did not see (meaning live). That is, I have an idea of an entity through abstract concepts: I saw pictures, heard sounds, read books. Moreover, I can see others in some entities by drawing parallels. For example, decide what a cloud looks like a crocodile. Ability to think abstractly allows us to distinguish a photograph of a dog from a photograph of a cat. But these are all subjects of the material world. They can be seen, compared, select common features. The ability to distinguish a cat from a dog, no longer know-how in the world of AI. I guess, that a live dog is also quite capable of distinguishing a painted cat from a painted dog. Depends on the patience and literacy of her trainer. So abstraction is something more than a comparison of various objects of reality. Here again the game begins with concepts and terms. I gave material examples a little earlier in the examples. Cloud - crocodile, photo - dog / cat. Equally, we can manipulate the data of our other senses: the cat says meow, the doggy is woof-woof, the pigeon is Kurly Kurly. And so on. There heaps and smells. These are all objects of the material world. To some extent, this can be measured, “felt” and cataloged. All this is also available to other higher representatives of the animal fauna. So abstraction is something more than a comparison of various objects of reality. Here again the game begins with concepts and terms. I gave material examples a little earlier in the examples. Cloud - crocodile, photo - dog / cat. Equally, we can manipulate the data of our other senses: the cat says meow, the doggy is woof-woof, the pigeon is Kurly Kurly. And so on. There heaps and smells. These are all objects of the material world. To some extent, this can be measured, “felt” and cataloged. All this is also available to other higher representatives of the animal fauna. So abstraction is something more than a comparison of various objects of reality. Here again the game begins with concepts and terms. I gave material examples a little earlier in the examples. Cloud - crocodile, photo - dog / cat. Equally, we can manipulate the data of our other senses: the cat says meow, the doggy is woof-woof, the pigeon is Kurly Kurly. And so on. There heaps and smells. These are all objects of the material world. To some extent, this can be measured, “felt” and cataloged. All this is also available to other higher representatives of the animal fauna. Equally, we can manipulate the data of our other senses: the cat says meow, the doggy is woof-woof, the pigeon is Kurly Kurly. And so on. There heaps and smells. These are all objects of the material world. To some extent, this can be measured, “felt” and cataloged. All this is also available to other higher representatives of the animal fauna. Equally, we can manipulate the data of our other senses: the cat says meow, the doggy is woof-woof, the pigeon is Kurly Kurly. And so on. There heaps and smells. These are all objects of the material world. To some extent, this can be measured, “felt” and cataloged. All this is also available to other higher representatives of the animal fauna.
Abstraction gives us a little more. Thanks to her, we can operate with such concepts as justice, result, office, chief, life / death, etc. That is, some definitions that we have come up with for ourselves. Although if we start to dig, and understand, to give a definition, we will use other definitions. For example: Existentialism is a special direction in philosophy ... Direction is a line of movement.
Movement - moving from place to place. Here we have already slipped into the material world. I think the logic is clear. Any abstract definition can be expressed through a series of other definitions, and at a certain level of abstraction, sooner or later we will fall into the definitions of the material world. In fact, the ability to operate with generalized concepts gives us the ability to generalize knowledge. Tautology to strengthen the word generalize. In fact, all our knowledge can be expressed through other knowledge. And most importantly, we can transfer this knowledge to another. The highest representatives of the animal world also teach each other. Females teach offspring how to get food, how to hunt, how to fight. But this knowledge is at the level of how a baby learns to compress his palm into a cam. By the way. Possession of your body is also knowledge. Who needs to learn and be taught. But this is by the way. The whole process of accumulating the knowledge of mankind is built in this way. We summarize existing knowledge by creating new ones. On the basis of created by searching or combinations of existing ones, we create new ones. And so on to infinity and beyond ... All science stands on it. Not so long ago, an article about it was. (At the time of this writing, not publication). Some people make hypotheses based on other hypotheses. And still others, on the basis of second hypotheses, make their own. It does not matter: erroneous or not. They create new knowledge. And here we come to another important point. Create a new one. It is creativity. I did not select it as a separate item, although very often the ability to "create" determines the mind. Here I loved to play with words, building a dead-end logical branch. Create things can many representatives of the animal world. Birds build nests, ant ants. Animals dig burrows. So how does termitary differ from high-rise buildings? Good. We can say that a person is able to create something new. The artist draws paintings that have not previously been painted. The writer writes books. Programmers write programs. They are creators. And if someone does not draw, does not write a book or music. If we take the average manager in a vacuum, which work is a friday-sofa-work? What does this person create new? But do we consider it reasonable? Definitely yes. Why? I will consider further if I do not forget. Let's go back to creation. Swallow builds a nest. It is unlikely that there will be those who say that this is a simple architectural design. Man builds a skyscraper. What is the fundamental difference between this? Well, first of all, it took millions of years for the swallows to learn how to build a nest. A person has learned over the decades and continues to improve his construction skill. Due to what? Reason? Not. Due to the fact that it creates new knowledge and quite successfully operates with the existing one.
Let us return to our “sofa office manager”, who has not created anything fundamentally new in his life. He is clearly intelligent. What will we use as a criterion for this? He is able to intelligently answer questions. Criterion? Well, why not. I will not dwell on the fact that Alice, Siri or something else, are capable of creating the illusion of a meaningful response. It will be just an illusion, and we feel it. How do we understand the “meaningfulness” of the answer? Very simply - the key idea of the answer coincides with the key idea of the question (this principle does not work, on many politicians, from which it is possible to raise the question of the consciousness and rationality of these). I emphasize that the key thoughts of the question and the answer coincide. Not keywords and phrases. Namely thoughts. Some abstract essence of the above, which stands out our ability abstract thinking. In some ways, the principle of "predominance of content over form" works. We are able to understand what we are told, regardless of what and how we are told. For example. Yuzver says: "I turned on the program, and she showed me a sign that the program is not working." And the wise recipient of this ticket, without the use of telepathic abilities, understands that the user launched 1SKU, which gave him an error. Although it may be an example and far-fetched, but, nevertheless, I hope it makes it clear that there is a huge difference between what we say, what we want to say and how we are understood. The better we are understood, the more reasonable our interlocutor. I did not include such an important criterion of reasonableness in my criteria, for the simple reason that this is a consequence of our ability to think abstractly. what we are told regardless of what we are told. For example. Yuzver says: "I turned on the program, and she showed me a sign that the program is not working." And the wise recipient of this ticket, without the use of telepathic abilities, understands that the user launched 1SKU, which gave him an error. Although it may be an example and far-fetched, but, nevertheless, I hope it makes it clear that there is a huge difference between what we say, what we want to say and how we are understood. The better we are understood, the more reasonable our interlocutor. I did not include such an important criterion of reasonableness in my criteria, for the simple reason that this is a consequence of our ability to think abstractly. what we are told regardless of what we are told. For example. Yuzver says: "I turned on the program, and she showed me a sign that the program is not working." And the wise recipient of this ticket, without the use of telepathic abilities, understands that the user launched 1SKU, which gave him an error. Although it may be an example and far-fetched, but, nevertheless, I hope it makes it clear that there is a huge difference between what we say, what we want to say and how we are understood. The better we are understood, the more reasonable our interlocutor. I did not include such an important criterion of reasonableness in my criteria, for the simple reason that this is a consequence of our ability to think abstractly. And the wise recipient of this ticket, without the use of telepathic abilities, understands that the user launched 1SKU, which gave him an error. Although it may be an example and far-fetched, but, nevertheless, I hope it makes it clear that there is a huge difference between what we say, what we want to say and how we are understood. The better we are understood, the more reasonable our interlocutor. I did not include such an important criterion of reasonableness in my criteria, for the simple reason that this is a consequence of our ability to think abstractly. And the wise recipient of this ticket, without the use of telepathic abilities, understands that the user launched 1SKU, which gave him an error. Although it may be an example and far-fetched, but, nevertheless, I hope it makes it clear that there is a huge difference between what we say, what we want to say and how we are understood. The better we are understood, the more reasonable our interlocutor. I did not include such an important criterion of reasonableness in my criteria, for the simple reason that this is a consequence of our ability to think abstractly. The better we are understood, the more reasonable our interlocutor. I did not include such an important criterion of reasonableness in my criteria, for the simple reason that this is a consequence of our ability to think abstractly. The better we are understood, the more reasonable our interlocutor. I did not include such an important criterion of reasonableness in my criteria, for the simple reason that this is a consequence of our ability to think abstractly.
In principle, the ability to speak is in itself a very large criterion of reasonableness. We think in our own language. Our internal dialogues take place in our language. Maybe it is the ability to speak makes us reasonable? I had been seriously considering this thought for some time.
And it has common sense. If it were not for the deaf. Thought about what language people think, from birth are not able to hear and speak? (If I am not mistaken, there is even a book on this subject). What they think is a fact. The fact that they are reasonable is also an indisputable fact. These people are able to read and communicate. The logical consequence is that our language helps us to formulate our thoughts, from this garbage dump that is in our head. To structure and produce in some kind of complete knowledge. And communication is not an exchange of words, but an exchange of knowledge. Even if small and ridiculous. When we talk to someone, we either give him information or we send a request for information. No more, no less. Without alternatives. Even empty chatter, carries information. Since all my writings are a collection of my personal conjectures and reasonings, not supported by clear mathematical calculations, and based only on verbal logical conclusions, so for each of my conclusions you can find several counter-arguments and dissolve the discussion. But the fact that all our communication is nothing more than the transfer / request of information, which is not much different from GET / POST, I propose to accept as a fact.
Each of us is interested in our well-being. Our well-being directly depends on what we possess. Our knowledge is also our property, giving us well-being. Why then do we share it? It’s logical that as soon as we gave a part of our knowledge to someone, we helped a person to increase his well-being. Naturally, different knowledge has a different value. Knowing that the weather is good today is not equivalent to knowing about something that will affect the stock price of any shares. And we can share it. What for? Well, for example, by doing so we force a person to dialogue, the result that his answer will become for us, and as a result - new knowledge. Or maybe it's some other motivation. In any case, when we open our mouth to make a sound that conveys information to other people's ears, we do it for a reason. Every time we have some specific goal. Even if we are not aware of it. Otherwise, we would not do anything, because in order to do something, you need to make some effort. And we are so arranged that when there is a choice to make an effort or not, we will not make it. That is, there is some kind of motive force in us that forces us to do something in the course of our life. There is motivation inside each of us. About this very motivation. It is very appropriate to remember Abraham Maslow with his well-known pyramid. Perhaps I even dwell on it. As is well known, this theory has more to do with economic theory than with psychology. And precisely in the key of marketing and attempts to influence consumer demand, it has become so widespread. And, nevertheless, modern psychology would not be the same; do not include Mr. Maslow in your work.
At the heart of the pyramid are primitive desires - physiological needs. To eat, sleep, multiply. Slightly higher need for security. I think that this motivation is peculiar not only to man. Moreover, I will argue that this is the motivation of everything “that consists of genes”. Starting from amoebas and plants, and ending with man. This is the basis of all living things. But the elements of the top of the pyramid: aesthetic needs and self-realization, are already peculiar to man. It is difficult to imagine a dog / cat / hamster / etc, who invent poems, rearrange their home, draw pictures ... And yet, despite all the subtleties of subsequent reasoning, I’ll have the courage to say that these higher motivations are a consequence of our animal Self .
I am sure that some of those few who have read this far may have doubts about my adequacy. Moreover, it turns out that there are people at Habré who, in all seriousness, speaks about the field structure. But I dare to assure you, I am fully intelligent and, I hope, maintain clarity of thinking. Let's slowly understand concrete examples. As an example of aesthetic needs, let's take fashion (the desire to dress beautifully) and repairs in the apartment. Where did fashion come from? Although not the case. Vi nid go dipe. If a person is dressed fashionably is it beautiful? It depends on the taste. Someone yes, someone not. There are well-established canons in clothing that are generally recognized as beautiful. For example, a man dressed in a fitted and well-fitting classic English suit will look beautiful. Here the concept of well-fitted and well-fitting is very important. Is there any criterion for this? Of course have. But these criteria have developed historically. Like the very concept of costume. I think the look of a man in a classic costume of the 21st century, 300 years ago, would have caused laughter at best. That is, the concept of fashion and beauty of clothes is not inherent in us. Fashion and beauty we have learned. They were dictated to us by our closest circle and society. Changes in clothes are not immediately. There is a prerequisite before the trend appears. Someone changed one detail. Another liked it. The third one replicated it, such details began to appear en masse and that’s all. We get a new round of fashion. A tie, for example, did not immediately become one. It was preceded by a long journey from the scarf. People want to differ from the general mass, while maintaining their position in the discharge rate. That is, we want to be accepted in society, but at the same time stand out. Therefore, slightly changing the elements of clothing, so that it was like everyone else, but with some kind of zest. The same goes for interiors. We want a big house, an expensive car. To make it "beautiful" by the standards adopted in society. That the society accepted us, but also we were better, than the others. The more people "worse" us (worse dressed, worse property etc), the better for us. It makes us grow, do something and strive for something. I will not go far. I lead this to the idea that all of our aesthetic perception, not much gone from peacock feathers. Repeatedly complicated, but the essence remains the same, to show their status in order to rise above others and receive great benefits in the form of the best partners. We want a big house, an expensive car. To make it "beautiful" by the standards adopted in society. That the society accepted us, but also we were better, than the others. The more people "worse" us (worse dressed, worse property etc), the better for us. It makes us grow, do something and strive for something. I will not go far. I lead this to the idea that all of our aesthetic perception, not much gone from peacock feathers. Repeatedly complicated, but the essence remains the same, to show their status in order to rise above others and receive great benefits in the form of the best partners. We want a big house, an expensive car. To make it "beautiful" by the standards adopted in society. That the society accepted us, but also we were better, than the others. The more people "worse" us (worse dressed, worse property etc), the better for us. It makes us grow, do something and strive for something. I will not go far. I lead this to the idea that all of our aesthetic perception, not much gone from peacock feathers. Repeatedly complicated, but the essence remains the same, to show their status in order to rise above others and receive great benefits in the form of the best partners. do something and strive for something. I will not go far. I lead this to the idea that all of our aesthetic perception, not much gone from peacock feathers. Repeatedly complicated, but the essence remains the same, to show their status in order to rise above others and receive great benefits in the form of the best partners. do something and strive for something. I will not go far. I lead this to the idea that all of our aesthetic perception, not much gone from peacock feathers. Repeatedly complicated, but the essence remains the same, to show their status in order to rise above others and receive great benefits in the form of the best partners.
Yes, we have art. Painting, music ... But they all evolved from something more mundane, and the ability to understand music and painting has not been given to us since birth. This is an acquired skill. Art grows and becomes more complex from year to year. But we ourselves complicate it, thanks to our abstract thinking. Art is an artificial form of activity. It is invented by man.
This is a deep level of abstraction. And yet, it began just like everything. With the simplest forms, having a deeply practical goal. And it gradually became what it is. But I would like to stress once more that the understanding of aesthetics and art is a consequence of our abstract thinking. Therefore, the highest human needs, nothing more than complicated and mutated, the basic needs of all living things.
I can not stop at the faith. The concept of the soul / spirituality of a rational being has been driven into our heads for centuries, it sits too deep in us. Even the most ardent atheists, can wear crosses, and slowly baptized. So. Just in case. It must be understood that religion has always existed in one form or another throughout the history of man. And many of her postulates have become for us basic life presuppositions. I do not want to dwell on the spiritual entities of man. If only because I can not refute the existence of the soul. No matter how many arguments I give against, there will always be a bunch of arguments for. But I stand for the fact that if a person has a soul, then all living things have it. And since not all life has a mind, it does not make us reasonable, and I simply ignore its presence.
Touching on faith, I want to touch not religion, but faith. After all, faith is when we perceive something that does not exist, as if it is. Faith lives in our heads. Faith is the little world that fills the gaps in our head when we lack information. Perhaps I will not even underestimate when I say that it is faith that defines us as rational beings. But once again I’ll pay attention when I say faith, I don’t mean religion. Faith is how we fill in the gaps in our information. If I delete the row in the database, and suddenly decide to use the link to this row, I get a null. And if I use the reference in my mind to something non-existent, I will receive the belief that something is there. (A bit stiff, but nonetheless. A little further I will touch on the topic of how we get something from the bins of our memory. And this is an analogy of links in general will die). Faith is how we use our knowledge, or rather their lack. When Rutherford, after a series of experiments, advanced his theory of the structure of the atom, he was not correct in it. He believed in it. He did not have knowledge on this issue, or they were speculative, he did a series of experiments. Summarized that he knows, and created a new knowledge. But this knowledge exists only at the abstract level, hypotheses, assumptions, conclusions. In essence, by his hypothesis, he closed the gap in his knowledge, exactly what faith does. This I now played a little with words in order to somewhat reveal the concept of faith. Faith - fills our picture of the world making it complete. It relies on some ideas about what we know and on the basis of this creates new entities in our mind. Moreover, these entities may even contradict the fact that that we know 100%. I can sincerely believe that if I put off work for tomorrow, then tomorrow it will be easier to do. I can sincerely believe that I will easily quit smoking at any time, although I already have about a dozen unsuccessful attempts. I can believe that if there was an eerie clang in the car, and then it was gone, the car itself was fixed. I can believe anything. Faith generalizes existing knowledge and creates new, not existing knowledge. But it is also knowledge, for using faith in something we can add it to existing knowledge and get new. But the scientific hypothesis works on the same principle. We take the existing knowledge, and on their base create a new one, putting forward a hypothesis or assumption. Other people take hypotheses created at different times by different people and give rise to new hypotheses. And thus promote science. Moreover, knowledge is generally a little different from faith in principle. I have never seen earth from space. But I am a "lover". And the fact that our planet is round is knowledge. This hoo what knowledge. And, nevertheless, we can observe people for whom the earth is flat. We have a lot of knowledge that we cannot personally verify. But nonetheless. This is exactly knowledge. But we "believe" them. What is common in these mechanisms is that each individual knowledge consists of a set of other knowledge. Each knowledge can be distinguished through a set of other knowledge. If there is not enough knowledge, then new knowledge is created. Is it being created? in which we can not personally verify. But nonetheless. This is exactly knowledge. But we "believe" them. What is common in these mechanisms is that each individual knowledge consists of a set of other knowledge. Each knowledge can be distinguished through a set of other knowledge. If there is not enough knowledge, then new knowledge is created. Is it being created? in which we can not personally verify. But nonetheless. This is exactly knowledge. But we "believe" them. What is common in these mechanisms is that each individual knowledge consists of a set of other knowledge. Each knowledge can be distinguished through a set of other knowledge. If there is not enough knowledge, then new knowledge is created. Is it being created?
Let's deal with what we know. Do you know what color your toothbrush is? Do you know what she looks like? Do you know what your pen looks like? Are you sure? Without looking at these devices, imagine them in your head.
Is it an exact copy? Probably yes. But with some details. When you try to present some object, you do not get it from memory as a photo. Your brain receives from its dark depths what is connected with this object, which lies on the surface, and from this already compiles the picture. The longer we focus on the picture, the more and deeper our brain gets all sorts of things and the more detailed the image becomes clouded. And so long as our brain lasts one of the links, on which it gets all sorts of trash, it does not seem more important, and it begins to collect trash for the link that seemed more important. In the broadest sense, I want to say that we do not remember anything. All our memories are a collection of some knowledge. Each of our knowledge consists of other knowledge. And abstract knowledge, knowledge that consists of other knowledge.
The difficulty of understanding this is that so far there is no unit of measurement of knowledge. How can one measure the knowledge of "cold", "bright light", "noise". Individually, we are fully able to evaluate, measure, and even digitize this knowledge. But in our brain measurements do not occur, we have a state of bright light, noise, sensation. All our sensations come to the brain, cause associations, memories there, are mixed into current thoughts and images. And this is all one. But if it is purely hypothetical to assume that there is such a unit of measurement. Let it be so KNOWLEDGE. All that we can distinguish as a separate entity will be KNOWLEDGE. How to clench a fist - KNOWLEDGE. The warmth of the sun on the skin - KNOWLEDGE. The feeling of height is KNOWLEDGE. 2 + 2 = 4 - KNOWLEDGE. That 2 is a figure - KNOWLEDGE. That the figures are Arabic and Roman - KNOWLEDGE. That 2 is a symbol - KNOWLEDGE. That 2 is the same as two is KNOWLEDGE. And so on.
What can be assumed from this. All KNOWLEDGE is related. KNOWLEDGE is impossible in itself. You can not define something using one word. And even if it is possible, an intermediary is needed here, such a concept as a definition. That is, in order for KNOWLEDGE to exist, there must be at least two other KNOWLEDGE through which the first can be determined. Complicated? Let's imagine a database that consists of two tables: KNOWLEDGE and MEMORY. In the first table we have one column, it is a PC, with the type KNOWLEDGE. The second consists of three columns: KNOWLEDGE (PC), PROPERTY, VALUE. Each type of knowledge. Each element in the second line refers to the line in the first. For those who write (write / sign) with 1C, this construction is well known by the example of information registers such as Category Objects, Property Values. Only in our second table there are no restrictions on duplicate records, there are no concepts of dimensions and resources, and the same type is used in all three columns. In principle, this structure is familiar to all when it is necessary to dynamically determine the set of properties of an object, and we do not know either the number of these properties or their essence. And different objects may have their own properties. And now let's estimate how much we know. Let's estimate the connections of what we know. And horrified by the size of this potential table. But even if you create it, what will be the request to it? How to understand which property is more priority? Trite. Let's throw in this table everything that we know about toothbrushes. All that we know about the properties of toothbrushes, and now let down everything that we know about the properties of the properties of toothbrushes. And we will try to make a request for this and assemble the image of a toothbrush from the resulting one. I think that it is, To put it mildly, problematic. We have not thought of such a quantum algorithm. But, nevertheless, it happens. And there is still a nail in the lid of this theory. Our memory is not a ROM. Even long-term. She is more like RAM. There is an interestingarticle on this topic. I do not see problems in it to doubt. The organization of the storage of knowledge in our brain, I will cover later and in more detail. For the time being we’ll dwell on the fact that we somehow possess knowledge.
Perhaps for me from all that was said above, this is the main criterion of reasonableness. We are able to recognize our knowledge and control it.
Perhaps, here, I still cut off my flight of thought, for the text came out a lot. As part of the introductory and philosophical part in subsequent publications, I will deal more deeply with the questions of motivating our behavior and organizing the storage of information in the brain. And then I proceed to the description of my attempts to emulate thinking. Although, to be honest, I myself do not yet know that I will write further. To be continued ...
Like everyone else, I sometimes go to work / from work, fall into the halls of my consciousness and think about the eternal questions that torment the best minds of humanity. This article is not an article in its broadest sense, but simply my attempt to fix the printed word and somewhat structure the swarm of thoughts in my head. As the saying goes: "If you want to understand something, tell it to another." I originally wrote this text for myself, so in some places thoughts can be torn, crumpled and maybe even without logic. If not scared, I ask under the cat.
So. "I think - it means I exist." How true is this? The snail exists, but it does not think. Thinks more precisely, but not as a person. Well, everything is complicated. The snail has no brain at all. There is a set of nerves (ganglia). Something about 20k neurons.
Actually she can not think by definition. But, nevertheless, it exists. Its existence is primitive, subordinate not even to instincts, but to something deeper. The essence of its existence, I think I do not even need to explain. It is not much advanced, from single-celled. And yet, advanced. She can control her body, receive information about the outside world, mate, distinguish between edible and inedible. Purely theoretically, if we create a neural network for 20k neurons that exactly replicates the cochlear nervous system, will it decide what it needs to eat and mate? I think no. Without some initial impulse and algorithm, it will remain a pile of metal. But here it is reasonable to note that unicellular and even plants also have a thirst for nutrition and reproduction. Although this is happening because "this has historically been the case." Because so in the process of evolution, genes were assembled, which in the initial chaos formed into insane combinations, giving rise to Goldberg's biological machines. There were only the best, namely survivable. But it's not about that. We have a fact. Living beings with varying degrees of intelligence and consciousness. All of them are subordinated to the original instincts, namely, to allow their genome to survive. But a reasonable person considers himself. What are the criteria for reason? Although it is closer to philosophy and epistemology, and, nevertheless, for myself I will try to highlight key concepts and decide which of these criteria is more important. Living beings with varying degrees of intelligence and consciousness. All of them are subordinated to the original instincts, namely, to allow their genome to survive. But a reasonable person considers himself. What are the criteria for reason? Although it is closer to philosophy and epistemology, and, nevertheless, for myself I will try to highlight key concepts and decide which of these criteria is more important. Living beings with varying degrees of intelligence and consciousness. All of them are subordinated to the original instincts, namely, to allow their genome to survive. But a reasonable person considers himself. What are the criteria for reason? Although it is closer to philosophy and epistemology, and, nevertheless, for myself I will try to highlight key concepts and decide which of these criteria is more important.
Well, first of all, self-consciousness, i.e. the ability to distinguish oneself from the rest of the world. Understanding your place in the world and society. I guess it had to be said. However, this is nonsense. Self-consciousness is a beautiful word, invented in order to amuse one’s human ego. This term is as meaningless as pretentious. Look the dog in the eye and say that he is not aware of his place in the world. Or a place in the pack. But is she rational? Definitely not. In principle, I was a bit hilarious here, and those who were at least a little interested in the theory of rationality understood that this point was rather trolling, because no serious research on the theory of mind uses such a concept as “self-knowledge” as a criterion of rationality. But too many of my opponents on this issue used this concept. Too many ... But let's not talk about sad things. Lets go leter.
The second point (and essentially the first) is abstract thinking. Here it is very difficult to argue. Abstract thinking, in fact, is a pillar of mind. I want to pay attention: ABSTRACT. Because later in the term is the word thinking. That in itself gives us the groundwork for sophistry and to conclude that not only man is capable of thinking. I probably refrain from giving the definition of abstract thinking. I think everyone understands it. And even if there are discrepancies in definitions - this is also the seed of abstract thinking. Well, if there is no understanding, then without panic, I will return to it further.
The third point is the ability to control oneself and suppress one's “animal” ego.
I will not even dwell on further points, because there are already sent messages from the first three (two) such as: Objectivity of perception of the surrounding world, creative thought, Degree of suppression of instincts, Rationality of thinking, Mind control over emotions, ability to think logically and blah, blah, blah I apologize, there are a lot of different criteria for a great deal of thought, almost all sucked from the finger and at best not based on "spirituality." And I do not have much control over emotions ... Apparently I am not intelligent ...
Summing up the summary of what has already been said, I want to stop focusing precisely on abstract thinking and the suppression of the “animal me”. (Actually, I ignored everything else).
In the broadest sense, abstract thinking is the ability to perceive the world without the world itself. That is, through some of his intermediaries. I have never seen live CME in my life, but I know what it is. I also did not see an elephant. But I think when I see, I understand that it is he, and not a kangaroo, which I also did not see (meaning live). That is, I have an idea of an entity through abstract concepts: I saw pictures, heard sounds, read books. Moreover, I can see others in some entities by drawing parallels. For example, decide what a cloud looks like a crocodile. Ability to think abstractly allows us to distinguish a photograph of a dog from a photograph of a cat. But these are all subjects of the material world. They can be seen, compared, select common features. The ability to distinguish a cat from a dog, no longer know-how in the world of AI. I guess, that a live dog is also quite capable of distinguishing a painted cat from a painted dog. Depends on the patience and literacy of her trainer. So abstraction is something more than a comparison of various objects of reality. Here again the game begins with concepts and terms. I gave material examples a little earlier in the examples. Cloud - crocodile, photo - dog / cat. Equally, we can manipulate the data of our other senses: the cat says meow, the doggy is woof-woof, the pigeon is Kurly Kurly. And so on. There heaps and smells. These are all objects of the material world. To some extent, this can be measured, “felt” and cataloged. All this is also available to other higher representatives of the animal fauna. So abstraction is something more than a comparison of various objects of reality. Here again the game begins with concepts and terms. I gave material examples a little earlier in the examples. Cloud - crocodile, photo - dog / cat. Equally, we can manipulate the data of our other senses: the cat says meow, the doggy is woof-woof, the pigeon is Kurly Kurly. And so on. There heaps and smells. These are all objects of the material world. To some extent, this can be measured, “felt” and cataloged. All this is also available to other higher representatives of the animal fauna. So abstraction is something more than a comparison of various objects of reality. Here again the game begins with concepts and terms. I gave material examples a little earlier in the examples. Cloud - crocodile, photo - dog / cat. Equally, we can manipulate the data of our other senses: the cat says meow, the doggy is woof-woof, the pigeon is Kurly Kurly. And so on. There heaps and smells. These are all objects of the material world. To some extent, this can be measured, “felt” and cataloged. All this is also available to other higher representatives of the animal fauna. Equally, we can manipulate the data of our other senses: the cat says meow, the doggy is woof-woof, the pigeon is Kurly Kurly. And so on. There heaps and smells. These are all objects of the material world. To some extent, this can be measured, “felt” and cataloged. All this is also available to other higher representatives of the animal fauna. Equally, we can manipulate the data of our other senses: the cat says meow, the doggy is woof-woof, the pigeon is Kurly Kurly. And so on. There heaps and smells. These are all objects of the material world. To some extent, this can be measured, “felt” and cataloged. All this is also available to other higher representatives of the animal fauna.
Abstraction gives us a little more. Thanks to her, we can operate with such concepts as justice, result, office, chief, life / death, etc. That is, some definitions that we have come up with for ourselves. Although if we start to dig, and understand, to give a definition, we will use other definitions. For example: Existentialism is a special direction in philosophy ... Direction is a line of movement.
Movement - moving from place to place. Here we have already slipped into the material world. I think the logic is clear. Any abstract definition can be expressed through a series of other definitions, and at a certain level of abstraction, sooner or later we will fall into the definitions of the material world. In fact, the ability to operate with generalized concepts gives us the ability to generalize knowledge. Tautology to strengthen the word generalize. In fact, all our knowledge can be expressed through other knowledge. And most importantly, we can transfer this knowledge to another. The highest representatives of the animal world also teach each other. Females teach offspring how to get food, how to hunt, how to fight. But this knowledge is at the level of how a baby learns to compress his palm into a cam. By the way. Possession of your body is also knowledge. Who needs to learn and be taught. But this is by the way. The whole process of accumulating the knowledge of mankind is built in this way. We summarize existing knowledge by creating new ones. On the basis of created by searching or combinations of existing ones, we create new ones. And so on to infinity and beyond ... All science stands on it. Not so long ago, an article about it was. (At the time of this writing, not publication). Some people make hypotheses based on other hypotheses. And still others, on the basis of second hypotheses, make their own. It does not matter: erroneous or not. They create new knowledge. And here we come to another important point. Create a new one. It is creativity. I did not select it as a separate item, although very often the ability to "create" determines the mind. Here I loved to play with words, building a dead-end logical branch. Create things can many representatives of the animal world. Birds build nests, ant ants. Animals dig burrows. So how does termitary differ from high-rise buildings? Good. We can say that a person is able to create something new. The artist draws paintings that have not previously been painted. The writer writes books. Programmers write programs. They are creators. And if someone does not draw, does not write a book or music. If we take the average manager in a vacuum, which work is a friday-sofa-work? What does this person create new? But do we consider it reasonable? Definitely yes. Why? I will consider further if I do not forget. Let's go back to creation. Swallow builds a nest. It is unlikely that there will be those who say that this is a simple architectural design. Man builds a skyscraper. What is the fundamental difference between this? Well, first of all, it took millions of years for the swallows to learn how to build a nest. A person has learned over the decades and continues to improve his construction skill. Due to what? Reason? Not. Due to the fact that it creates new knowledge and quite successfully operates with the existing one.
Let us return to our “sofa office manager”, who has not created anything fundamentally new in his life. He is clearly intelligent. What will we use as a criterion for this? He is able to intelligently answer questions. Criterion? Well, why not. I will not dwell on the fact that Alice, Siri or something else, are capable of creating the illusion of a meaningful response. It will be just an illusion, and we feel it. How do we understand the “meaningfulness” of the answer? Very simply - the key idea of the answer coincides with the key idea of the question (this principle does not work, on many politicians, from which it is possible to raise the question of the consciousness and rationality of these). I emphasize that the key thoughts of the question and the answer coincide. Not keywords and phrases. Namely thoughts. Some abstract essence of the above, which stands out our ability abstract thinking. In some ways, the principle of "predominance of content over form" works. We are able to understand what we are told, regardless of what and how we are told. For example. Yuzver says: "I turned on the program, and she showed me a sign that the program is not working." And the wise recipient of this ticket, without the use of telepathic abilities, understands that the user launched 1SKU, which gave him an error. Although it may be an example and far-fetched, but, nevertheless, I hope it makes it clear that there is a huge difference between what we say, what we want to say and how we are understood. The better we are understood, the more reasonable our interlocutor. I did not include such an important criterion of reasonableness in my criteria, for the simple reason that this is a consequence of our ability to think abstractly. what we are told regardless of what we are told. For example. Yuzver says: "I turned on the program, and she showed me a sign that the program is not working." And the wise recipient of this ticket, without the use of telepathic abilities, understands that the user launched 1SKU, which gave him an error. Although it may be an example and far-fetched, but, nevertheless, I hope it makes it clear that there is a huge difference between what we say, what we want to say and how we are understood. The better we are understood, the more reasonable our interlocutor. I did not include such an important criterion of reasonableness in my criteria, for the simple reason that this is a consequence of our ability to think abstractly. what we are told regardless of what we are told. For example. Yuzver says: "I turned on the program, and she showed me a sign that the program is not working." And the wise recipient of this ticket, without the use of telepathic abilities, understands that the user launched 1SKU, which gave him an error. Although it may be an example and far-fetched, but, nevertheless, I hope it makes it clear that there is a huge difference between what we say, what we want to say and how we are understood. The better we are understood, the more reasonable our interlocutor. I did not include such an important criterion of reasonableness in my criteria, for the simple reason that this is a consequence of our ability to think abstractly. And the wise recipient of this ticket, without the use of telepathic abilities, understands that the user launched 1SKU, which gave him an error. Although it may be an example and far-fetched, but, nevertheless, I hope it makes it clear that there is a huge difference between what we say, what we want to say and how we are understood. The better we are understood, the more reasonable our interlocutor. I did not include such an important criterion of reasonableness in my criteria, for the simple reason that this is a consequence of our ability to think abstractly. And the wise recipient of this ticket, without the use of telepathic abilities, understands that the user launched 1SKU, which gave him an error. Although it may be an example and far-fetched, but, nevertheless, I hope it makes it clear that there is a huge difference between what we say, what we want to say and how we are understood. The better we are understood, the more reasonable our interlocutor. I did not include such an important criterion of reasonableness in my criteria, for the simple reason that this is a consequence of our ability to think abstractly. The better we are understood, the more reasonable our interlocutor. I did not include such an important criterion of reasonableness in my criteria, for the simple reason that this is a consequence of our ability to think abstractly. The better we are understood, the more reasonable our interlocutor. I did not include such an important criterion of reasonableness in my criteria, for the simple reason that this is a consequence of our ability to think abstractly.
In principle, the ability to speak is in itself a very large criterion of reasonableness. We think in our own language. Our internal dialogues take place in our language. Maybe it is the ability to speak makes us reasonable? I had been seriously considering this thought for some time.
And it has common sense. If it were not for the deaf. Thought about what language people think, from birth are not able to hear and speak? (If I am not mistaken, there is even a book on this subject). What they think is a fact. The fact that they are reasonable is also an indisputable fact. These people are able to read and communicate. The logical consequence is that our language helps us to formulate our thoughts, from this garbage dump that is in our head. To structure and produce in some kind of complete knowledge. And communication is not an exchange of words, but an exchange of knowledge. Even if small and ridiculous. When we talk to someone, we either give him information or we send a request for information. No more, no less. Without alternatives. Even empty chatter, carries information. Since all my writings are a collection of my personal conjectures and reasonings, not supported by clear mathematical calculations, and based only on verbal logical conclusions, so for each of my conclusions you can find several counter-arguments and dissolve the discussion. But the fact that all our communication is nothing more than the transfer / request of information, which is not much different from GET / POST, I propose to accept as a fact.
Each of us is interested in our well-being. Our well-being directly depends on what we possess. Our knowledge is also our property, giving us well-being. Why then do we share it? It’s logical that as soon as we gave a part of our knowledge to someone, we helped a person to increase his well-being. Naturally, different knowledge has a different value. Knowing that the weather is good today is not equivalent to knowing about something that will affect the stock price of any shares. And we can share it. What for? Well, for example, by doing so we force a person to dialogue, the result that his answer will become for us, and as a result - new knowledge. Or maybe it's some other motivation. In any case, when we open our mouth to make a sound that conveys information to other people's ears, we do it for a reason. Every time we have some specific goal. Even if we are not aware of it. Otherwise, we would not do anything, because in order to do something, you need to make some effort. And we are so arranged that when there is a choice to make an effort or not, we will not make it. That is, there is some kind of motive force in us that forces us to do something in the course of our life. There is motivation inside each of us. About this very motivation. It is very appropriate to remember Abraham Maslow with his well-known pyramid. Perhaps I even dwell on it. As is well known, this theory has more to do with economic theory than with psychology. And precisely in the key of marketing and attempts to influence consumer demand, it has become so widespread. And, nevertheless, modern psychology would not be the same; do not include Mr. Maslow in your work.
At the heart of the pyramid are primitive desires - physiological needs. To eat, sleep, multiply. Slightly higher need for security. I think that this motivation is peculiar not only to man. Moreover, I will argue that this is the motivation of everything “that consists of genes”. Starting from amoebas and plants, and ending with man. This is the basis of all living things. But the elements of the top of the pyramid: aesthetic needs and self-realization, are already peculiar to man. It is difficult to imagine a dog / cat / hamster / etc, who invent poems, rearrange their home, draw pictures ... And yet, despite all the subtleties of subsequent reasoning, I’ll have the courage to say that these higher motivations are a consequence of our animal Self .
I am sure that some of those few who have read this far may have doubts about my adequacy. Moreover, it turns out that there are people at Habré who, in all seriousness, speaks about the field structure. But I dare to assure you, I am fully intelligent and, I hope, maintain clarity of thinking. Let's slowly understand concrete examples. As an example of aesthetic needs, let's take fashion (the desire to dress beautifully) and repairs in the apartment. Where did fashion come from? Although not the case. Vi nid go dipe. If a person is dressed fashionably is it beautiful? It depends on the taste. Someone yes, someone not. There are well-established canons in clothing that are generally recognized as beautiful. For example, a man dressed in a fitted and well-fitting classic English suit will look beautiful. Here the concept of well-fitted and well-fitting is very important. Is there any criterion for this? Of course have. But these criteria have developed historically. Like the very concept of costume. I think the look of a man in a classic costume of the 21st century, 300 years ago, would have caused laughter at best. That is, the concept of fashion and beauty of clothes is not inherent in us. Fashion and beauty we have learned. They were dictated to us by our closest circle and society. Changes in clothes are not immediately. There is a prerequisite before the trend appears. Someone changed one detail. Another liked it. The third one replicated it, such details began to appear en masse and that’s all. We get a new round of fashion. A tie, for example, did not immediately become one. It was preceded by a long journey from the scarf. People want to differ from the general mass, while maintaining their position in the discharge rate. That is, we want to be accepted in society, but at the same time stand out. Therefore, slightly changing the elements of clothing, so that it was like everyone else, but with some kind of zest. The same goes for interiors. We want a big house, an expensive car. To make it "beautiful" by the standards adopted in society. That the society accepted us, but also we were better, than the others. The more people "worse" us (worse dressed, worse property etc), the better for us. It makes us grow, do something and strive for something. I will not go far. I lead this to the idea that all of our aesthetic perception, not much gone from peacock feathers. Repeatedly complicated, but the essence remains the same, to show their status in order to rise above others and receive great benefits in the form of the best partners. We want a big house, an expensive car. To make it "beautiful" by the standards adopted in society. That the society accepted us, but also we were better, than the others. The more people "worse" us (worse dressed, worse property etc), the better for us. It makes us grow, do something and strive for something. I will not go far. I lead this to the idea that all of our aesthetic perception, not much gone from peacock feathers. Repeatedly complicated, but the essence remains the same, to show their status in order to rise above others and receive great benefits in the form of the best partners. We want a big house, an expensive car. To make it "beautiful" by the standards adopted in society. That the society accepted us, but also we were better, than the others. The more people "worse" us (worse dressed, worse property etc), the better for us. It makes us grow, do something and strive for something. I will not go far. I lead this to the idea that all of our aesthetic perception, not much gone from peacock feathers. Repeatedly complicated, but the essence remains the same, to show their status in order to rise above others and receive great benefits in the form of the best partners. do something and strive for something. I will not go far. I lead this to the idea that all of our aesthetic perception, not much gone from peacock feathers. Repeatedly complicated, but the essence remains the same, to show their status in order to rise above others and receive great benefits in the form of the best partners. do something and strive for something. I will not go far. I lead this to the idea that all of our aesthetic perception, not much gone from peacock feathers. Repeatedly complicated, but the essence remains the same, to show their status in order to rise above others and receive great benefits in the form of the best partners.
Yes, we have art. Painting, music ... But they all evolved from something more mundane, and the ability to understand music and painting has not been given to us since birth. This is an acquired skill. Art grows and becomes more complex from year to year. But we ourselves complicate it, thanks to our abstract thinking. Art is an artificial form of activity. It is invented by man.
This is a deep level of abstraction. And yet, it began just like everything. With the simplest forms, having a deeply practical goal. And it gradually became what it is. But I would like to stress once more that the understanding of aesthetics and art is a consequence of our abstract thinking. Therefore, the highest human needs, nothing more than complicated and mutated, the basic needs of all living things.
I can not stop at the faith. The concept of the soul / spirituality of a rational being has been driven into our heads for centuries, it sits too deep in us. Even the most ardent atheists, can wear crosses, and slowly baptized. So. Just in case. It must be understood that religion has always existed in one form or another throughout the history of man. And many of her postulates have become for us basic life presuppositions. I do not want to dwell on the spiritual entities of man. If only because I can not refute the existence of the soul. No matter how many arguments I give against, there will always be a bunch of arguments for. But I stand for the fact that if a person has a soul, then all living things have it. And since not all life has a mind, it does not make us reasonable, and I simply ignore its presence.
Touching on faith, I want to touch not religion, but faith. After all, faith is when we perceive something that does not exist, as if it is. Faith lives in our heads. Faith is the little world that fills the gaps in our head when we lack information. Perhaps I will not even underestimate when I say that it is faith that defines us as rational beings. But once again I’ll pay attention when I say faith, I don’t mean religion. Faith is how we fill in the gaps in our information. If I delete the row in the database, and suddenly decide to use the link to this row, I get a null. And if I use the reference in my mind to something non-existent, I will receive the belief that something is there. (A bit stiff, but nonetheless. A little further I will touch on the topic of how we get something from the bins of our memory. And this is an analogy of links in general will die). Faith is how we use our knowledge, or rather their lack. When Rutherford, after a series of experiments, advanced his theory of the structure of the atom, he was not correct in it. He believed in it. He did not have knowledge on this issue, or they were speculative, he did a series of experiments. Summarized that he knows, and created a new knowledge. But this knowledge exists only at the abstract level, hypotheses, assumptions, conclusions. In essence, by his hypothesis, he closed the gap in his knowledge, exactly what faith does. This I now played a little with words in order to somewhat reveal the concept of faith. Faith - fills our picture of the world making it complete. It relies on some ideas about what we know and on the basis of this creates new entities in our mind. Moreover, these entities may even contradict the fact that that we know 100%. I can sincerely believe that if I put off work for tomorrow, then tomorrow it will be easier to do. I can sincerely believe that I will easily quit smoking at any time, although I already have about a dozen unsuccessful attempts. I can believe that if there was an eerie clang in the car, and then it was gone, the car itself was fixed. I can believe anything. Faith generalizes existing knowledge and creates new, not existing knowledge. But it is also knowledge, for using faith in something we can add it to existing knowledge and get new. But the scientific hypothesis works on the same principle. We take the existing knowledge, and on their base create a new one, putting forward a hypothesis or assumption. Other people take hypotheses created at different times by different people and give rise to new hypotheses. And thus promote science. Moreover, knowledge is generally a little different from faith in principle. I have never seen earth from space. But I am a "lover". And the fact that our planet is round is knowledge. This hoo what knowledge. And, nevertheless, we can observe people for whom the earth is flat. We have a lot of knowledge that we cannot personally verify. But nonetheless. This is exactly knowledge. But we "believe" them. What is common in these mechanisms is that each individual knowledge consists of a set of other knowledge. Each knowledge can be distinguished through a set of other knowledge. If there is not enough knowledge, then new knowledge is created. Is it being created? in which we can not personally verify. But nonetheless. This is exactly knowledge. But we "believe" them. What is common in these mechanisms is that each individual knowledge consists of a set of other knowledge. Each knowledge can be distinguished through a set of other knowledge. If there is not enough knowledge, then new knowledge is created. Is it being created? in which we can not personally verify. But nonetheless. This is exactly knowledge. But we "believe" them. What is common in these mechanisms is that each individual knowledge consists of a set of other knowledge. Each knowledge can be distinguished through a set of other knowledge. If there is not enough knowledge, then new knowledge is created. Is it being created?
Let's deal with what we know. Do you know what color your toothbrush is? Do you know what she looks like? Do you know what your pen looks like? Are you sure? Without looking at these devices, imagine them in your head.
Is it an exact copy? Probably yes. But with some details. When you try to present some object, you do not get it from memory as a photo. Your brain receives from its dark depths what is connected with this object, which lies on the surface, and from this already compiles the picture. The longer we focus on the picture, the more and deeper our brain gets all sorts of things and the more detailed the image becomes clouded. And so long as our brain lasts one of the links, on which it gets all sorts of trash, it does not seem more important, and it begins to collect trash for the link that seemed more important. In the broadest sense, I want to say that we do not remember anything. All our memories are a collection of some knowledge. Each of our knowledge consists of other knowledge. And abstract knowledge, knowledge that consists of other knowledge.
The difficulty of understanding this is that so far there is no unit of measurement of knowledge. How can one measure the knowledge of "cold", "bright light", "noise". Individually, we are fully able to evaluate, measure, and even digitize this knowledge. But in our brain measurements do not occur, we have a state of bright light, noise, sensation. All our sensations come to the brain, cause associations, memories there, are mixed into current thoughts and images. And this is all one. But if it is purely hypothetical to assume that there is such a unit of measurement. Let it be so KNOWLEDGE. All that we can distinguish as a separate entity will be KNOWLEDGE. How to clench a fist - KNOWLEDGE. The warmth of the sun on the skin - KNOWLEDGE. The feeling of height is KNOWLEDGE. 2 + 2 = 4 - KNOWLEDGE. That 2 is a figure - KNOWLEDGE. That the figures are Arabic and Roman - KNOWLEDGE. That 2 is a symbol - KNOWLEDGE. That 2 is the same as two is KNOWLEDGE. And so on.
What can be assumed from this. All KNOWLEDGE is related. KNOWLEDGE is impossible in itself. You can not define something using one word. And even if it is possible, an intermediary is needed here, such a concept as a definition. That is, in order for KNOWLEDGE to exist, there must be at least two other KNOWLEDGE through which the first can be determined. Complicated? Let's imagine a database that consists of two tables: KNOWLEDGE and MEMORY. In the first table we have one column, it is a PC, with the type KNOWLEDGE. The second consists of three columns: KNOWLEDGE (PC), PROPERTY, VALUE. Each type of knowledge. Each element in the second line refers to the line in the first. For those who write (write / sign) with 1C, this construction is well known by the example of information registers such as Category Objects, Property Values. Only in our second table there are no restrictions on duplicate records, there are no concepts of dimensions and resources, and the same type is used in all three columns. In principle, this structure is familiar to all when it is necessary to dynamically determine the set of properties of an object, and we do not know either the number of these properties or their essence. And different objects may have their own properties. And now let's estimate how much we know. Let's estimate the connections of what we know. And horrified by the size of this potential table. But even if you create it, what will be the request to it? How to understand which property is more priority? Trite. Let's throw in this table everything that we know about toothbrushes. All that we know about the properties of toothbrushes, and now let down everything that we know about the properties of the properties of toothbrushes. And we will try to make a request for this and assemble the image of a toothbrush from the resulting one. I think that it is, To put it mildly, problematic. We have not thought of such a quantum algorithm. But, nevertheless, it happens. And there is still a nail in the lid of this theory. Our memory is not a ROM. Even long-term. She is more like RAM. There is an interestingarticle on this topic. I do not see problems in it to doubt. The organization of the storage of knowledge in our brain, I will cover later and in more detail. For the time being we’ll dwell on the fact that we somehow possess knowledge.
Perhaps for me from all that was said above, this is the main criterion of reasonableness. We are able to recognize our knowledge and control it.
Perhaps, here, I still cut off my flight of thought, for the text came out a lot. As part of the introductory and philosophical part in subsequent publications, I will deal more deeply with the questions of motivating our behavior and organizing the storage of information in the brain. And then I proceed to the description of my attempts to emulate thinking. Although, to be honest, I myself do not yet know that I will write further. To be continued ...