An Inductive, Biological Approach to NL and Math v1.1

(A list of observations and inductive conclusions)

 

Introduction

This is a short paper that presents a very rough sketch of a new theory of Natural Language (NL) and mathematics the author has reached inductively, that is, through perceptual observations and a framework of valid concepts and inductions (according to the non-statistical inductive methods for logical induction presented in reference 1). In other words, concepts that have been formed using a systematic, reality-based method of observation, measurement comparison, and inter-relating, as opposed to the two traditional ways of forming concepts that have been used most commonly in the past: Intrinsicism (the “intuition” of so-called metaphysical or mystical “essences”) or subjectivism (totally arbitrary, made up conceptual constructs and assumptions). Induction is performed by using validated concepts to construct premises by starting with observations of causal relationships in reality.

These ideas will eventually have a huge impact on other fields in science, but especially on the fields of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Artificial Life (AL) because using computer systems to mimic intelligence and consciousness, to whatever degree that is possible, have a great dependency on valid concepts and non-statistical induction.

While the ideas outlined here are identified conceptually, most of them were first grasped by the author and every reader perceptually, that is, by direct observation of objects acting in reality during childhood. Commonly held views on this topic notwithstanding, the basis of all human knowledge is perceptual self-evidences, not mysticism, intuition, or arbitrary assumption. To begin to understand the basic facts of reality, one has only to open one's eyes and look! But most people today have a huge disadvantage, and “just looking” is very difficult for them to do: They doubt the validity of their own senses due to thousands of years of mistaken philosophical ideas. The author is aware this is a bold claim, so do not take it at face value. If you doubt it, as Ayn Rand was fond of saying: “Check your premises!”

( Note: The claim is neither arbitrary nor motivated by arrogance. Quite the contrary, it is supported by a huge body of little known, but well thought out ideas! In addition to the ideas of Ayn Rand, this perspective is also supported by a new theory of how the brain operates that has been developed by Jeff Hawkins and explained in his book On Intelligence (See reference 17). The author leaves it up to the reader to decide if the claim and supporting ideas are objective and reasonable. In fact, intellectually honest readers can and should personally check each and every one of the points the author and supporting references make by observing reality with their own senses and thinking about those observations and the abstract ideas they imply. Nothing the author or the references assert should be taken at face value or accepted on faith: Every point should be carefully considered and thought through, reduced in an unbroken conceptual chain from whatever its level of abstraction, and ultimately reduced by the reader to facts that are directly observe-able in the everyday world. In addition, every point needs to be integrated with at least 2-5 other validated areas of knowledge in the reader's own conceptual system in order to ensure that the idea or premise being checked is both grounded in observe-able fact and is not contradicted by previously validated knowledge. Only then , should the reader accept the author's assertions. But given that today's implicit methodology of starting from arbitrary assumptions or constructs is almost universal among scientists and philosophers alike, this is a tall order! Why? Because the approach advocated in this paper runs contrary to what our culture teaches one to do. The approach being suggested here is almost unknown in today's intellectual world, and therefore, few readers will know of this method of thinking or how to apply it. It is the strong suggestion of the author that the reader first read this paper once through to get an overview of its thesis. Then, if the thesis interests the reader, he or she should study some of the references to this paper, so as to be able to become familiar with the crucial differences in method just described, because they are unequivocally prerequisite to an in depth understanding of the thesis presented below. See reference 2, chapters 1-5 for a detailed overview of these important prerequisite ideas and methods.)

One other important point that needs to be emphasized is the need to investigate this paper's thesis in the first place. After all, there are already a number of well thought out, widely accepted theories on the topics of induction, NL, and mathematics, so why do we need another? The motivation for all learning is human survival. As explained in detail in observations 2-7 below, it is our survival needs that motivate and drive us to choose to acquire knowledge and create technologies. In spite of many attempts to maintain the contrary (see reference 7), human beings are significantly different from other animals. Humans are unique in one key aspect: People have no built-in, automatic means of survival , no instincts to rely on like animals do to adapt to their environment. We depend on free will, perceptual observation of reality, and reason to develop the technologies we need to survive, to adapt our environment to us (not the other way around). It for this reason that humans are the only species on the planet that writes papers like the one you are now reading. It is precisely because you have a human identity that you are able read and to understand what you are reading. No animal has ever performed such a feat in spite of the thousands of man-hours that have been spent in attempts to teach other animals natural language (see reference 7). Acquiring knowledge and building technologies is not a parlor game for human beings. Our very lives depend on our doing so successfully!

 

Main Observations and Inductive Reasoning

1) “Existence Exists. A is A. Consciousness is Conscious.” – Ayn Rand (These are not arbitrarily assumed axioms. They are self-evident, implicit axiomatic concepts based on direct observations. They cannot be proven because they are the very basis of proof, but they can be validated quite easily: Any attempt to deny them depends on their acceptance and use. That fact cannot be escaped, and if you doubt this assertion, just try it! A corollary of these axioms is: Causality. Causality is the inter-action of the identities of objects, not the action-reaction of billiard balls or a simple sequence of events. (see reference 1, chapters 1 and 2)

2) Two kinds of objects exist: Living objects and nonliving objects. The existence of living objects is conditional : They must act to cause their own future survival. This fact is also self evident: One needs only to observe what happens to any life-form that stops acting to cause its own future survival: I dies, putrefies, rots, disintegrates, and reverts back to the basic, non-living chemical compounds out of which it is formed. (see reference 4)

3) Life is a continuous process of self-generated, self-sustaining, self-regulated action. Life depends on a more complex form of causation than non-life. The internal energy sources and self-regulating, goal-directed behavior of life-forms enables them to cause their own future survival by sensing the world and taking self-regulated actions, something non-living objects cannot do. The fact of survival (successful action) enables them to cause future actions . Dead life-forms cannot act. (see reference 4 and reference 13, chapter 2) As Jeff Hawkins has so aptly put it, goal-directed behavior amounts to the brain of a life-form predicting the future: “Prediction and motor behavior work hand in hand as patterns flow up and down the cortical hierarchy. As strange as it sounds, when behavior is involved, your predictions not only precede sensation, they determine sensation.” (See reference 17, page 172) (Dead life-forms cannot act. Survival is a complex causal process: Life causes both its own continuation, and as long as life actions continue, it can cause other actions that may not necessarily be survival related. The following image depicts this complex form of causality graphically. The goal of survival must be met on each cycle for the process to continue, and as you can see, it is very different from the way mechanisms work.

(See reference 3 in Appendix A Section 1.2.1 of our book or reference 4 below.)

4) Values are things or actions that sustain life and non-values destroy life. Values are a direct consequence of the conditionality of life: Anything that helps maintain the conditions life requires is a value, and anything that undercuts those conditions is a non-value. (see reference 4)

5) Survival requires life-forms to gain and keep values and to avoid or destroy non-values. To do so, all life-forms need a means of survival, the means by which they supply their own energy needs and self-regulate their actions to gain and keep values. To survive, plants have evolved tropisms, animals have evolved instincts, and humans have evolved volition, concept formation, and reason. (see reference 2, chapter 6-7 and reference 5)

6) For higher animals and humans, the capacity to identify objects and actions in the environment of a life-form has survival value to those life-forms: “Knowledge is power” in whatever form they can process it. In this context that means the power to survive. (see reference 2, chapters 6-9) In the human brain, the neo-cortex produces what we call intelligent functions, all the brain functions we share with chimps and some other animals for example. In humans, the neo-cortex produces all the intelligent functions that enable us to process our symbolic, language based knowledge from sensations to abstract ideas. The human neo-cortex is “about the size of a large dinner napkin” and about as thick as “six business cards, as opposed to a rat's, which is “the size of a postage stamp.” (See reference 17, page 42) We are now learning how the cortex operates at the neural level, how it causes consciousness as a process that in turn enables people to observe and learn about reality.

7) “Existence IS Identity. Consciousness IS identification.” – Ayn Rand. Consciousness identifies perceptually by automatically (in a goal-directed sense) and directly identifying specific instances of objects and their actions in the environment of a life-form. Objects in reality are all inter-connected in many different ways, at every scale, and between scales. While no network or hierarchy as such exists in nature independent of people, when processed by human consciousness, the inter-connections in reality are converted into ideas and identified as relationships of various kinds, including networks and hierarchies. Ayn Rand has pointed this out, and many types of relationships have been identified in every area of scientific investigation. Jeff Hawkins has realized the importance of this fact to brain function and specifically calls attention to it in his book: “One of the most important concepts in this book is that the cortex's hierarchical structure stores a model of the hierarchical structure of the real world. The real world's nested structure is mirrored by the nested structure of your cortex.” (See reference 17, page 125 and Note: Though Hawkins does not make this distinction, the author of this paper believes that the hierarchy is conceptual, not perceptual.) Conscious processes are neither mystical magic nor diaphanous epi-phenomena. They are biological processes caused by the brain of a life-form. Conscious processes are biological processes which are also causes themselves. Their effect is that they form an informational relationship between a life-form and reality. Conscious processes are biological, relational, causal processes that show a life-form what the objects in the world it observes are , how many there are, how they are related, what those objects do in action, and the causal consequences of those actions. The resulting information (content of consciousness) can then be used by a life-form to evaluate the observed objects as values (pro-life) or disvalues (anti-life) and to select survival actions. The last is especially important, for it is the perceptual identification of causes and effects that is some of the most useful and productive knowledge for promoting animal and human survival. Perceptual identification is what enables life-forms to make predictions about what will happen next in reality and to set goals. Perceptual consciousness is a causal process that produces an integration of all human sensations, an integration that effectively maps reality , which is the environment for any particular life-form. This “map” enables life-forms to do automatic risk/benefit analysis with their built-in pleasure/pain and emotional systems and to take survival actions that would not otherwise be possible. (see references 3 and 8 for details) Conscious processing enables life-forms to predict the outcomes of their actions, to set, to measure progress toward, and to accomplish goals. The human neo-cortex consists of 6 layers and many “micro-columns,” according to Hawkins. It is the neural processes in the neo-cortex acting in concert that cause and enable us to identify objects in reality and predict their actions using sense perception. And while it is well known that reality is complex and dynamic, that no two objects are exactly alike and appear different in various conditions, the cortex resolves this ambiguity by the by transforming objects into invariant forms. These forms are what we perceive. They also are the objects in reality (not representations), but the same objects merely transduced into informational form . This transformation occurs as the result of a two step process that is part of sense perception, of perceptual consciousness. Jeff Hawkins describes it as follows (though he does believe they are representations): “The cortex “has an estimated several hundred million micro-columns.” … “The large numbers of synapses connecting the cells in a column to other parts of the brain provide each column with the context it needs in order to predict its activity in many different situations.” (See reference 17, pages 140-141) Identification also requires control over where a life-form looks as it observes the world, and the human cortex provides the capability of selective focus of attention as well: “So the sensory visual areas of the cortex, such as V1 and V2, not only process visual input, but they help determine the movement of the eyes themselves, and therefore what you see.” (See reference 17, page 145) This is perceptual consciousness explained using biological causation : “Every moment in your waking life, each region of your neo-cortex is comparing a set of expected columns to columns driven from above with the set of observed columns driven from below. Where the two sets intersect is what we perceive. (See reference 17, page 156)

8) Conceptual consciousness is an additional layer of processing that identifies relationships implicit in perceptions by self-consciously comparing and relating the attributes of perceived objects, by mentally comparing and relating the data gained through perceptual consciousness. While all types of relationships can be identified conceptually, most of them are categorical relationships. In other words, concepts index or classify all of known reality, including non-observable aspects of it. Concept formation is a volitional process that only humans are capable of performing the choices it requires. In other words, they perform it if and only if they choose to do so; it is not biologically automatic like sense perception is. To perceive, one needs only open one's eyes and look. Concept formation is an additional layer of cognitive processing and self-regulation that is performed by different parts of the cortex and other brain structures, but it depends on the output of perceptual consciousness processing for its content . Ayn Rand has explained concept formation as a quasi-mathematical process that starts by comparing the relative measurements of specific, perceived objects and moves on to more abstract levels from there. (see references 5 and 15) Concept formation also depends partly on introspection (consciousness directed inward to memories of past experiences) and imagination. There were no physical theories of how introspection and imagination work until Hawkins explained it as follows: “Finally, in addition to projecting to lower cortical regions, layer 6 cells can send their output back to layer 4 cells of their own column. When they do, our predictions become the input. This is what we do when we are daydreaming or thinking. It allows us to see the consequences of our own predictions.” (See reference 17, page 156) And while such simulations can never equal biology (precisely because they are not alive), they can mimic some biological processes, behaviors, and causation, provided they are designed with the appropriate identity. The layered model below shows this system design in the form of a table. Note: The functions in each layer of the table are analogous, not equivalent.

Biological Life-Forms

Digital Life-Forms

Layer 7

Conceptual Consciousness (Reason)

Simulated Conceptual Consciousness

Layer 6

Perceptual Consciousness

Simulated Perceptual Consciousness

Layer 5

Goal-directed Cellular Processes

Simulated Goal-Directed Behavior

Layer 4

Mechanistic Cellular Processes

Digital Life-Form Simulation Program

Layer 3

RNA, Protein, ATP Synthesis

Object-Oriented Prog. Environment

Layer 2

DNA Processes

Computer Operating System

Layer 1

Electro-chemical, Physical Processes

Computer Hardware

 

9) The primary conceptual relationship that is identified by conscious processing is classification. This is the grouping and naming of objects, or regarding objects as separate members (units) of a group of two or more similar members , a group that is represented by a symbol (a word or other perceptual marker – see references 3 and 10 for details). This process amounts to indexing the reality maps created by sense perception. Interestingly, the conceptual structures that result from concept formation are, like the cortex, hierarchical. They too reflect the nested nature of both reality and the organization of the neo-cortex. This quasi-mathematical technique of classifying reality is the real basis of NL, and it is possible because of a capacity that is intrinsic to the human brain (but not other animals), namely the ability to volitionally focus on and compare the attributes of objects by their measurements relative to each other . In other words, to group objects by similarity using a spectrum of relative measurement that is built into the human perceptual system (different or similar, larger than this, smaller than that, and so on. See reference 13, chapters 4- 5 for details)

10) The overall survival advantage of conceptual consciousness is mental unit economy : A single symbol identifies and points to all the information known about all instances of objects of a certain type past, present, and future , currently observe-able or not. Percepts are invariant compared to sensations and that is also a great survival advantage, but all percepts are unique, time dependent, and observationally or memory dependent. Concepts are an entirely new data-type that provides a new form of invariant knowledge that is dependent only on memory. This is a strong pro-life value that provides an incentive for the development of technologies of naming objects and their attributes, especially their actions and predictions of their causal consequences. Over time, a large number of symbols are invented and come into common use, symbols that name all sorts of objects, attributes, actions, causes, and effects. So when people see objects or actions and wonder “What is that?” they are thinking by asking themselves a mental question of their subconscious (using introspection and imagination as described above). If they have formed a concept of that type of object, their subconscious will return the word that symbolizes the concept containing the unit or instance of the particular object they have just perceived, along with any other information they have stored in that conceptual “file folder” about those kind of objects. (see reference 6). Concepts come before language . In addition, and as a side effect, forming concepts changes the action capacity of human beings. It changes their memory at very least, which means making physical changes in the synapses between neurons in the brain. Though we may not yet know all the specifics, it is safe to say that the synapses in the brains of scientists are different from the synapses in the brains of mystics because they have different identities and what we now know of neurophysiology. The identity of an object (including life-forms) determines its action capacity. What something is determines what it can do . (Scientists can do science and mystics cannot.) It is precisely the conceptual capacity of human children enables them to far outpace animals in NL performance when they reach a certain age. Study after study has shown this ability of children to surpass animals at a certain point. So by choosing to use their capacity to form concepts, children actually change their own identity by changing both their memories and the physical makeup of their brains. Hence they also change their action capacity, and that is how they suddenly surpass the abilities of other animals in language skills. (see references 9 and 10 for details)

11) A second relationship identified by using concepts is causality . In other words, how the identities of objects interact with and affect the action capacities of other objects in a dynamic environment (not billiard ball action-reaction events). This is especially true of those causal interactions that impact survival because those interactions have a causal impact on a person's very existence. As with similarity relationships, causal relationships are first identified perceptually as specific instances of the observed actions of objects: For example, seeing what fires do to objects thrown into them, what tigers to do prey or one's relative, what water does to dirt, what food or poison does to people, and so on. These are all first level causal interactions everyone can directly observe , can see in reality with their own eyes, see in our everyday world. They are interactions that we are all motivated to see in order to survive. (see reference 1, lectures 1 and 2)

12) Once a mental integration is made, it cannot be reversed . This is a startling and recent discovery by Drs. Leonard Peikoff and David Harriman (see reference 1, lecture 7). A new integration of ideas stays with us forever, barring a catastrophe such as physical injury to the brain. So after a time, more and more things are conceptualized and acquire names that become ingrained in our mental operations. With many name symbols in common use to identify objects, attributes, and actions, people using concepts soon get into the habit of using their new “naming technology” to identify whatever they perceive (just like we use our other new technologies all the time, such as computers, the Internet, PDAs, cell phones, and so on). So having developed a new technology of naming objects, people naturally, subconsciously, and implicitly ask themselves: “What is that?” or “What happened?”, when they see things around them. Asking their subconscious implicit questions also soon becomes habitual, like snapping pictures with one's new cell phone. (see reference 6 for details) And, just as computers, the Internet, PDAs and cell phones have quickly led to all kinds of new ways of doing things in our time, having concepts soon led people at some point in prehistory to new ways of using their conscious minds to interact with reality and their own subconscious. Having concepts changes the identity of peoples' minds , and hence what they can do with them. (Remember, changing the identity of something, changes its action capacity.) When many concepts are known, people see and identify events in their environment differently because multiple symbols will come up from their subconscious simultaneously , leading to multi-symbol conceptual identifications such as: “fire burn hand,” “tiger kill man,” food taste good,” and so on. Words are strung together in linear fashion simply by virtue of the fact that human consciousness is limited, and we cannot perceive all the words at once unless they are strung together into a single percept . In doing so, one more step toward language has been reached. Phrases come after concepts and before sentences. The meaning of the phrase is the union of the concepts it contains. Logical induction is how we build NL phrases. It is the very source of our premises. (see reference 1, lecture 1 for details)

13) The survival advantage is, again, mental unit economy. The 3 symbols, such as “tiger kill man,” provide instant immediate access to the information at the union of the three concepts identified , as well as delayed access to all the other information known about the acting objects (delayed while we remember or think about them more). As a side effect, this new mental habit changes the action capacity of people who learn it, both mentally and at the physical level in the synapses of their neo-cortex. Remember, the identity of an object (including life-forms) determines its action capacity. What something is determines what it can do . As with concepts, the ability to identify causes symbolically bumps human beings up another notch in the “power-band” of their own action capacity. In addition, by sharing these new symbols and mental techniques, they can now consciously change the identities (action capacities) of their family members, friends, and their children by teaching them to form new concepts and identify new causes with symbols (just like you might by showing a friend how to snap a picture with a cell phone). The technology of using phrases, therefore, has not only improved the survival chances of the people who use them, but it also increases the range of choices open to them. It increases the very power of their volitional capacity because it provides a third means of enabling people to change their own identity . Perceptual learning that changes memory is one means. The naming technology of first level concepts provides a second means, and phrases provide a third means for people to increase their power to adapt the world to their survival and happiness needs. Eventually, the entire human race benefits.

14) Longer term, naming technology in conjunction with concept formation and cause and effect observations leads to a technology of sentence formation (Subject Verb Object: SVO, SOV, etc.) and eventually a complete NL. The personal opinion of the author is that NL technology has been invented multiple times from the connection of conceptual identification of causal events such as “fire burn hand.” Or “fire hand burn.” After all, if one's subconscious returns several symbols at once, what else can be done with them besides to string them together horizontally, vertically, or in some other order altogether such as a pictogram! This may explain why at least 4 of the 6 permutations of SVO are used in the world's written NLs that are based on symbol strings, and why some written languages are read in different directions (left to right or right to left or up and down). Just pick one, but any direction or one of the 6 possible permutations of Subject Verb Object will do…whereas if NL was intrinsic, one would think there would be but one or two forms of basic syntax! See reference 13, chapter 5 for details) In addition, there is now evidence that not all languages have the basic set of grammatical structures that linguists have assumed. According to a Science News article about the Piraha language of a remote tribe of Amazon people: “No Piraha refers to abstract concepts or distant places and times. … As a result, Piraha grammar bucks all sorts of linguistic conventions, according to Everett . The language lacks words for quantities, contains no standard words for colors, shows no sign of expanding or combining sentences through the use of clauses, rarely uses pronouns, employs just two tenses, and features only a few kinship terms, which refer mainly to living relatives.” (See reference 18 for details) This is more evidence that NL is a technology invented by people in remote history.

15) There now may be even more physical evidence about brain function to support observations 7-9 and 12 above. Most brain function researchers, including Jeff Hawkins, believe that percepts, memories, and other brain content are stored by a small group of neurons. However, now there is new evidence from a recent discovery. Though more research is needed, early indications are promising (see reference 16, especially page T106). It turns out that single neurons were activated in test subjects when they were presented with objects they recognized on a computer screen . According to the reference: “What are the common features that activated these neurons? Given the great diversity of distinct images (pencil sketches, caricatures, letter strings, colored photographs with different backgrounds) that these cells can selectively respond to, it is unlikely this degree of invariance can be explained by a simple set of metric features common to these images. Indeed, our data are compatible with an abstract representation of the identity of the individual or object shown.” But the "this degree of invariance" can be explained by the measurement ranges specified in Ayn Rand's objective theory of concepts. This evidence is precisely what one would expect to find for a conceptual consciousness which uses a quasi-mathematical method to identify relationships implicit in perceptions by comparing and relating the relative measurements of the attributes of objects, by comparing the data gained through perceptual consciousness---as pointed out in 8 above. After all, a concept contains every instance of something that falls into its measurement ranges. Concepts contain  every instance that ever was, is, or will be of that type . Therefore, a high degree of invariance is exactly what is to be expected. Moreover, once a neuron is trained to perform such a function, short of brain damage, it will always perform that function because it has been physically changed. This supports the observation in 12 above that mental integrations (which is what concepts are) cannot be reversed once made. Ayn Rand has said that: “Man is a being of self-made soul.” If people train single neurons (or the synapses of small groups of them) as a direct consequence of their conceptual choices, that statement may be true physically as well as mentally.

16) Counting is a perceptual technology for identifying quantity. A third conceptual relationshi p is identified after counting perceptually is learned . That relationship is the isolation of quantity from groups of objects. In other words, the conceptualization and naming of quantities as concepts such as “nose-many” tigers, “eye-many” fish, “hands-many” apples, and so on. Counting comes before numbers , numbers come before arithmetic, arithmetic comes before algebra, algebra comes before calculus, and so on because each set of processes logically require the ones that come before them. (see reference 14 for details) But the identification of quantitative relationships is not hardwired into the human brain. It is technology that most cultures have developed. As pointed out in 14 above, the Piraha people of the Amazon do not share in this technology: “In a particularly surprising twist, the Piraha language---unlike any other recorded tongue---employs no numbers or other quantity terms Everett contends. It lacks words that would translate as all, many few, each , and every .” (See reference 18 for details)

17) The survival advantage of conceptualizing quantities is the ability to explicitly measure objects, risk, and survival values (instead of relying only on the system of relative, larger or smaller than type measurements that is built into the human perceptual system). Eventually, the conceptualization and naming of quantities leads to the technology of the number line (where position is equivalent to quantity: 1 2 3 4 5…what a genius idea!), and later to the technologies of arithmetic, algebra, calculus, and so on. (see reference 14 and reference 1, lecture 7 for details)

18) Together, the technologies of NL and mathematics eventually lead to pre-science, then to the scientific method, and finally to a fully defined method for logical induction as we are now just discovering. (see reference 1, lecture 7 for details)


Inductive Conclusions by the Author

NL and mathematics are volitionally invented technologies. These capacities are neither automatically determined by genetics as intrinsic parts of the human brain, nor are they arbitrary human constructs. Both are at root objective relationships of objects observed in reality, as well as an informational relationship that biological consciousness forms with reality Consciousness is essentially a relational process.

What is intrinsic to the human brain is a pleasure-pain system that motivates humans to act quickly in order to survive life threatening situations. This includes the capacity to focus consciousness, to zoom in or out at will on the objects and groups of objects that humans perceive: “Is that a tiger or just a strange pattern of leaves?!” Also intrinsic is the ability to consciously and automatically identify reality using sense perception and the capacity to volitionally and selectively focus on specific characteristics of objects and their measurements to aid in their identification. (Choice is necessary for this because there is not enough time to do it any other way, due to the endless number of possible relationships that could be identified. Survival requires quick identification of danger, before something dangerous stops life processes permanently.) One additional intrinsic capacity of the human brain is the ability to consciously compare the measurements of the characteristics of observed objects to identify the conceptual relationships that exist between them, relationships that exist between the objects themselves, and relationships between human beings and reality.

The technologies of NL and mathematics merely leverage these extant mental systems that the human brain already possesses, but the technologies themselves are not to be found in the brain. The brain provides us with a perceptually integrated, invariant, view of reality, the operation of which we are only now coming to understand in detail. The brain processes our sensations to provide the perceptual data for concepts. The technologies of NL and mathematics can then be invented (and probably reinvented many times over) by people who choose to focus their minds to form and integrate concepts. Once formed and invented, the new concepts and technologies do, however, change the physical identity of the brains (the memory = the neural and chemical states) of the brains of the people who use them, and these changes in identity thereby increase the power of the action capacities of those individual people. As this process “spirals into the future,” people then find new ways to operate their minds they did not have before . The new learning changes the identity of their memory and hence the causes these people can enact using their consciousness processes in the future. But the original cause of all of the changes was the conscious choice to focus their minds and identify reality in the first place.

If the thesis presented in this paper is valid and true, it changes the very foundation of linguistics, mathematics, and logic. It also implies some other interesting questions about future courses of study and the potential applications for these technologies:

  1. Dr. Peikoff has observed: “Valid concepts are the green light to induction.” (reference 1) Given that fact, what is the impact on inductive reasoning about these topics using the perspective of language and mathematics defined as technologies , as opposed to the current view that they are intrinsic, hard wired brain subroutines or arbitrary human constructs?
  2. What is the impact on the design and implementation of computer-based simulations of consciousness (to whatever degree we can mimic biology in our simulation designs)?
  3. What are the implications of the new understanding of brain operation that Jeff Hawkins has provided on the design and implementation of computer-based simulations of consciousness?
  4. What is the impact on sciences that closely affect business, such as Computer Science, Service Science, and Quality Management?
  5. This paper identifies at least two intermediate and evolutionary steps between concepts and fully developed systems of NL and mathematics (the observation of causal relationships and their identification using conceptual symbols (words) in short phrases). Are there any others? What are the implications if the single neuron detection evidence is confirmed?
  6. What are the implications of thinking about NL and mathematics as technologies?
  7. This paper cites much evidence in the Objectivist literature for the thesis it presents. Is there more that can be found in that body of ideas to provide additional validation of the thesis and indicate promising areas for future study?
  8. What additional evidence for this paper's thesis can be found in other disciplines such as neurophysiology, psychology, anthropology, linguistics, mathematics, and so on?
  9. What are the short and long-term applications for the technologies implicit in this paper's thesis, and how can they be best developed and exploited?
  10. More and more automation and technical analysis is currently being applied to very serious problems relating to security. Are there any immediate applications implicit in this paper's thesis for Homeland Security or military applications, for example?
  11. How can more scientists and other intellectuals be interested in the new ideas explained in this paper's thesis to help speed the advancement of science and philosophy?
  12. How can these new ideas be repackaged for young people to get them excited about all of the new opportunities that will develop in this and related fields of study in the next decade?

 

References

  1. Induction in Philosophy and Physics - Dr. Leonard Peikoff, 2003, Second Renaissance, Inc.
  2. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand - Dr. Leonard Peikoff, Dutton, 1991, ISBN# 0-525-93380-8
  3. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology - Ayn Rand, Meridian , Expanded Second Edition, 1990, ISBN# 0-453-00724-4
  4. The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts - Dr. Harry Binswanger, Ayn Rand Institute Press, 1990, ISBN# 0-9625336-0-2
  5. Volition as Cognitive Self-Regulation - Dr. Harry Binswanger, Second Renaissance Books, 1991, ISBN# 1-56114-108-9
  6. Psycho-Epistemology I & II - Dr. Harry Binswanger, Second Renaissance Books, 1996, 1997 (audio tapes)
  7. Animal Cognition - Dr. Edwin Locke, Second Renaissance Books, 1997, (audio tape)
  8. The Metaphysics of Consciousness - Dr. Harry Binswanger, Second Renaissance Books, 1998, (audio tape)
  9. Consciousness as Identification - Dr. Harry Binswanger, Second Renaissance Books, 1989, (audio tape)
  10. Abstractions from Abstractions - Dr. Harry Binswanger, Second Renaissance Books, 1996, (audio tape)
  11. The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z, Edited by Dr. Harry Binswanger, Signet Books, 1986, ISBN# 0-453-00528-4
  12. Objectivism: The State of the Art , Dr Leonard Peikoff, Second Renaissance Books, 1987, (audio tape)
  13. How to Simulate Consciousness Using a Computer System - Gregory J. Czora, Copyright 2001, published only on the Internet, http://www.blueoakmountaintech.com/DLF_Book.html/Cover.html
  14. Selected Topics in the Philosophy of Science - Dr. Harry Binswanger, Second Renaissance Books, 1991, (audio tape)
  15. Free Will - Dr. Harry Binswanger, Second Renaissance Books, 1999, (audio tape)
  16. Invariant visual representation by single neurons in the human brain , Quiroga, Reddy, Kreiman, Koch, and Fried, Nature:Vol 435|23 June 2005 |doi:10.1038/nature03687
  17. On Intelligence - Jeff Hawkins, Owl Books, 2004, ISBN# 0-8050-7853-3
  18. The Piraha Challenge, Bruce Bower, Science News December 10, 2005 pages 369-384, Vol. 168, No. 24

Welcome Page | About Us | Testimonials | Services | FAQs