# Language/Math, Description/Measurement, Least Energy Principle and AI

Language/Math, Description/Measurement, Least Energy Principle and AI

By Herb Wiggins, Discoverer/Creator of the Comparison Process/COMP Theory/Model; 14 Mar. 2014

“Man is the measure of all things.”
–Protagoras 5th C. BC

1. Inability of Mathematics to describe language; inability to describe biological, taxonomies and medical language and processes..
2. The universe is NOT mathematical, but partly describable with math.
3. Flexibility of language in descriptions markedly superior to math; useful biological/medical examples
3a. The comparative forms of adjectives as incontrovertible PROOF of the presence of the COMP in all language/descriptions.
4. Measuring is ALL a Comparison Process (COMP): distance, weights, time, etc.
5. Descriptions mostly cannot be measured. It lacks numericity used in the sciences.
6. Visual tracking as a predictive COMP; Butterfly chaotic flight and tracking; missile control by math/geometry versus avian tracking systems; human tracking while driving is much the same.
7. Predicting the future and the Least Energy Principle (LEP); value of the rule of 72;
collapse of the USSR and the LEP;
8. Stock market collapse of 2000 and predictions/prophecies.
9. Understanding the structure/function relationship of the comparison process in the cortex of brain; why it’s very hard to understand complex systems esp. of the cortex;
10. Can mathematics, if it cannot describe language much at all, describe human cortical cell functions which arise from the cortex?
11. Can present day math learn how to speak language, or write creatively?
12. A COMP possible solution to the problem of re-creating by machines, human cortical creativity; increasing speed of human creativity by computer modeling.
13. How do programmers create new programs, new operation processes, etc.?
A new form of relational mathematics is needed. Math needs to grow a new form, more descriptive as are languages.
14. The COMP which creates language is more important than mere grammar.
15. The use of empirical introspection to analyze and model programmer creativity processes, as it has that of scientific creativity. Creating creativity on computers by studying how programmers do their work.
16. Empirical introspective study of programmers’ skills and how their cortex’ output creates new programming. Successfully nderstanding programmers’ creativity can leads to a creative computer and substantially speeds up programming progress. Creativing creativity by computers will then be directly applicable to understanding language, emotions, and so forth and creating true AI.

1. The real problem has been for years that language and mathematics are not consonant. We can say everything in language, even complex mathematics, and we can write a great deal in language and are NOT able to translate that into math. For instance, the entire taxonomy of living and extinct species of all life, all the kingdoms and phylae, cannot be translated into mathematics. A bit of the descriptions can, but very little of it, either. Images of the living species cannot either. This is a real problem. The math does not exist which can describe a living species, except in trivial measurements, either.

In the same way, the entire compendium of medicine, the texts of each specialty, the physical exam, physical findings, differential diagnosis, complex system of steps of testing to a reasonably secure diagnosis, and the treatment protocols cannot be mathematized. We cannot describe the intricacies of psychology and psychiatry, let alone the anatomy and physiology and structure/function relationships derived from neurology in math either. It’s impossible with math as it exists at present.

In the same way we cannot translate a dictionary into mathematics, nor a novel, nor a play, nor a movie. Yet we can say and speak about all of mathematics. Teachers do this every day all over the world. The descriptions using words can describe math, but math cannot describe very much which is verbal.

2. I recall hearing many years ago at university that the universe was mathematics. I just looked at him and asked, then mathematize anatomy, the differential diagnosis and the entire DSM3!! He got very quiet and muttered something rude, and also logically irrelevant to the obvious. The universe is not any more mathematical than it’s English, French, or Latin, and those languages esp. in the biological world describe it far, far better than math ever can. In the arts and religions of the world, we can defy anyone to translate the Bible, New and Old Testaments into math, or for that matter, the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita, or the Buddhist texts. It can’t be done. Or to translate an entire movie into mathematical terms, or an opera or symphony? Impossible!! Clearly.

There is an extreme limit to the abilities of math to take on physical descriptions, esp. images. A picture is worth 1K words. An image would take hugely more, a very great deal more, perhaps 10k’s more using math!!. And neither could the math identify what the objects were, either. Esp. not even famous places.

3. Verbal descriptions on the other hand are very, very flexible and useful, as anyone in biological fields, including medicine, know from working every day. Let’s describe a beetle, for example. We can tell about size, altho we can use measurement to describe in more precise terms. But we use colors, and patterns of colors for the overall description. There are 2 antennae, 6 legs, often swept back in the Scarabaeidae family..There is a hard, protective, chitinous covering over the wings called the elytra. There is the cephalon (head), the thorax and the abdomen. Each of these in many beetle families has its own shape, such as the Coccinelidae, the lady bug family, where all are conforming to the rounded shape, tho the 3 major body division still are there. We describe these often with a drawing or image, so when we see them we can recognize them. The entire taxonomy of all beetles, and indeed all species known has been described using words. measurement is useful, but incidental to it. These descriptions are in fact sorts of measurements, tho they are qualitative, not quantitative. yet there are highly useful in description of almost all living forms.

3a. The most convincing demonstration of the ubiquity and that the Comparison Process is at the core of language and its descriptions are the comparative adjectives and forms. Endless and unlimited, just like the COMP. Here is the proof. Good and bad; Good, better, best, the trinary forms of the dualities, the comparative adjectives. Nice, nicer, nicest. Lowest, lower, low, high, higher, highest. Here is a Continuum built of two continua!!. Very much so. Two together. Comparing, combining, ever additive, endless. Very nice; somewhat nice; very, very nice. Endless comparatives. Take each letter of the alphabet and start listing each of the easiest to think of. Above, almost, below; before, a bit before, just before; After, nearly after, just after. Cool, cooler, coolest; close, closer, closest. Dull, duller, dullest; very dull, most dull. Happy, happier, happiest, very happy, much happiness, more happiness, most happiness. Etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., right to the end of the alphabet and in any modern language, find the same. Universal, real, existing, and solidly evidenced AND confirmed by unlimited examples, which anyone can create, any time.

Again, the COMP, endless, unlimited, undeniable, incontrovertible, essential, ever present, at the very core of description and language. The Comparison Process creates language and is the engine of language creation and usage.

4. In measuring, we use the Comparison Process overtly and completely. If we are to measure distance, we compare that to a known standard, be it a ruler, tape measure, or in surveying the theodolite which measures against the known phenomenon that the further away something is, that the size of it decreases by the square of the distance. This can be very precisely measured and then compared to the known standards to establish quickly and easily the sizes and dimensions of large areas of land without dragging around long ropes, chains and other formerly used methods. Each of these cases shows that the measuring COMPARES to a fixed gradated standard to arrive at a unit measure.

When we measure weights they are measured most accurately using a balance scale which measures a highly graded tension which is standardized against (compared to) a known weight. We step on a scale it’s comparing our weight to what is already standardized. All weights are measured using comparison.

When we measure time, we do so comparing to the UTI in Greenwich, UK, where the time is known and broadcast around the world by radio so the actual time can be known in each of the time zones. For more precise measurement, we compare the second to the vibrations of a quartz piece in a watch, which is precisely known by counting the vibrations/second and constantly counting that to create an accurate time piece. For more precision, we use the transition times of microwave radiation which occur when electrons rise to a higher level when absorbing a radiation then release it when falling to a lower level. This occurs at a very precise rate and the earliest effective clocks were accurate to 1 part per 10 Billion. So time is measured compared to the electron transition times between 2 electron levels in a suitable atom, usually Cesium. Time again is measured by this comparison.

When we synchronize we use the comparison process Two times. First the clock is standardized to noon, where the sun is at it’s highest point. That’s why Noon is used because the day was always measured from noon to noon. For obvious reasons as overcast days, this method had to be modified. Thus we standardize to noon, even today, worldwide, where the center of each time zone is offset 1 hour every 15 degrees latitude for each time zone east or west of Greenwich. Then we look at the clock, usually with a second hand/digital readout and compare our watch to when the second had reaches 12, for instance, and set the watch to precisely compare to the standard clock time. Comparison all the way through.

When we read time we do so by comparing events to a standard time keeper. When we measure speeds we measure the distance divided by time, against two comparison processes to establish distance/time, giving speed in meters/second, or whatever units to be used. In every case, we compare the event being measured against fixed standards. Measuring is clearly, plainly a pure comparison process.

Now look, how is description any different from measuring except there is not the valuable numbering system? It’s no different in fact. So when we state something we are actually using a qualitative description to measure a known quantity without numbers. Whether it’s a color which corresponds (Comparson Process) to known frequencies, or brightness using a photometer to measure the number of incident photons, it’s all the same thing.

Descriptions can be compared to some measurements. But some descriptions cannot BE measured, for instance when we call something a leg, or tail, or head, or wing. Those do not carry numericity, which is so valuable in terms of measuring events in the sciences. And indeed, it’s very hard to introduce numericity into the normal language. It’s been the great breakthru which has created the science, where ingenious, creative (COMP) methods have been used to measure where we could not measure before. It’s the number use, numericity, which has made science so successful because it permits more precise description than possible with verbal descriptions alone. It also creates more predictive capabilities,

6. Consider tracking of an object. Our visual systems are esp. good at this and devote a good deal of the nervous system to closely yoking each eye precisely in line withe other, so we don’t get double vision. This double input allows us to estimate distance using a parallax method, depth perception). It also allows us to determine which directions flying or moving objects/events are going so we can estimate where the object will be in a few seconds (bird flight), minutes(cloud movement wind speed), or hours (movements of the sun, moon, or fixed stars thru the sky. Calendars.) Our visual systems can then predict where they are going.

Now this is an interesting thing when we think about butterflies, because they fly in such a very irregular, almost chaotic way. Most people have seen this but not figured out WHY does the butterfly do this? It’s very easy. Birds also have visual tracking systems, and they can predict which way an object is going to go, because of the tracking system in their brains. So they can intercept an insect flying in a straight line more or less. Yum!!. Butterflies are very much larger and cannot easily avoid a bird, esp. with their colored wings. But, if they fly chaotically, how can the bird brain track it? There is no regularity for the bird to recognize and then target the insect. They escape very easily and so cannot be easily caught. It’s a survival mechanism based upon the bird’s tracking system which has a very hard time following a chaotic butterfly wing’s irregual flight.

How this compares to missile interception and fire contol is much the same. Essentially it can all be understood in a series of comparison processes. First, there must be detection, usually by radar. The targetting mechanism figures out by comparing successive radar impulses where the target is moving in space, and how fast, by measuring the speed at which the radar pulse bounces off the target. If it’s moving to the left, or right, then the directional system figures this out by comparing the time and location in an internal system set up for that, usually a mathmatical program which relates to geometry, that is a comparison to a 3D system. Then it compares the differences between a series of carefully timed pulses to determine the speed, and when those are done, it has a “lock”. The system gives a series of beeps or light blinkings and the operator of the missile fires it. The missile homes in on the target using constant radar updates to figure its position and if the target’s evasive maneuvers are not fast enough nor enough, then it is hit and damaged or destroyed.

The bird does this, but we don’t know how. Clearly it has to have some kind of internal representation using a neural system which can model the changes over a few dozen milliseconds, arrive at an approximation to where the insect will be in a few more seconds and dive towards it, comparing each position to the ones previously to continue to update the approximate spot the bug will be in the near future, connect this into the wing beats for diving and speeds of approach and then grab the bug in its beak within some range of movement depending on how long the neck is, and how fast the beak can shut on the bug. We’ve all seen them do it. And their capacities for intercepting flying insects is remarkable. We cannot duplicate this system, because the birds are constantly changing their positions, directions and so forth and tho the bird might not always capture the bug, it often does. Yum!! Comparison processing through out. And the bird does NOT use mathematics to do it, but neural networks, whatever those are.

Once we undestand that this sort of thing, i.e., the comparison process, is going on to measure, move towards and intercept, then we can more easily figure out how to duplicate in some way, this process. In driving cars we do the same thing. We know that if we speed up too much we will get to the light before it changes to green, and so we learn an internal algorithm related to how fast we are going and how long it’ll take to get to the light at a certain speed after it changes to green. So we do the same thing as a bird. I knew a student who was so good at this he could pick out of the air a fly buzzing about. His comparison Processes were working very quickly and very fast. No math involved, but the superb tracking and predicting system his brain had using the Comparison process.

The Comparison Process cannot just predict speeds and directional velocities, but it can also predict to some extent what people are going to say, or do in set circumstances. It can also sight down time lines, extrapolate from current data, and make a prediction that some event is going to occur. This is in fact a kind of prophecy. For instance we knew, many of us, that the USSR/communism/state socialism was doomed. In Nixon’s autobiography he talked about meeting the Dalai Lama, who stated that the USSR was not acting according to the rules governing human greed and incentive and so must eventually fail for this reason alone.

7. The real reason the USSR failed was the Least Energy Principle. This is a comparison process method, purely. It measures outcomes, compares them and finds the one which uses the least cost, time and distance in accomplishing a certain goal. It’s the basis of efficient production, work and all known tasks. The entire universe uses it in terms of a photon’s paths which are the most direct and the least energy, even thru a gravitational field. The orbits of the planets are least energy. The paths which cows take back from the fields to the milking barns in the afternoons are also least energy. The conformations of series of soap bubbles are also. From the trivial to the mighty galactic clusters, all is Least Energy. The windings and bends of river courses are also least energy for flowing waters.

This principle is seen everywhere, and is a basic tool anyone using the Comparison Process must know about and utilize. Because if a method uses less time, and less resources, and less distance of travel to get a single, set goal done, for instance, mining coal and getting that to the customers, or creating electricity with the least amount of waste of production and transportation, that advantage will build up. Using the Rule of 72, which measures doubling times related to an interest rate divided into 72, if a process of manufacturing by one factory is 10% more efficient than his competitor, given a similar marketing condition (yet another comparison process), then in 7 years, his advantage will be double that of his competitor. In 14 years 4 fold, and in 20 years he will dominate if not own the market.

This was largely what went on in the USSR. There was terrific waste in food production, at all levels, from planting, quality of seed which determined % of sprouting, cultivation, plants, lack of harvesting machines and tractors and so forth. And they could not get the food to market because of bad roads, bad trucks and inefficient storage and labor problems, they had to Fight the “Battle of the harvest” every year” where even students and factory workers had to turn out to get the food harvested, stored and shipped. This took away efficient education and production and affected the entire USSR during harvest times. While US farmers were only 2% of the population, Soviet farmers were 30-40% of the population to grow about the same amount of food. Comparatively, as it’s an outcome statistic.

This problem occurred all over the USSR in all areas. It got so they could not drill oil wells much more than about 10K feet down, in several days, where the US firms would do the same down to 25K feet in only a day, thus giving the US a huge comparative advantage in efficiency of drilling, more drilling and deeper, too. As a result USSR oil production began peaking out in May 1984. The Russkies knew this would happen and built many large, cheap, simple, graphite moderated nuclear power reactors called the RBMK-1000 models, in groups of 2 to 4. This was Chernobyl, and SosNovy Bor as well, including others. Everyone knows what happened there, esp. when an estimated 30% of Soviet workers were drunk most days, which continues to the present.

Upon this basis of inefficiency it was predicted the USSR would collapse if we held strong. Reagan increased pressure on them using direct embargoes of computer and other strategic goods and then forced them into a massively costly arms build up they could not afford. In 1991, the USSR collapsed due to its inefficiencies, many of which have not been reduced even today. This was no surprise to most of us.

8. Before the stock market crash of 2000, the “Economist” of London had 2 front page cover articles about the USA’s stock market bubble, where prices were WAY in excess of reasonable, some with price/earnings ratios of 50-60 to one and some of mathematical infinity because of no dividends. I can recall those two front page cover article images. Further when sitting at a dinner meeting with some associates in March 2000 telling them the our stock markets would collapse and to be ready to get out quickly to cut losses. There were two responses. One wife said, “The stock market can’t collapse. All of our pension money is in stocks.” I looked at her and said, “How can I be overdrawn? I’ve still got checks!!” And another fat and rather overconfident person said, “No one can predict the future at all.” “The London Economist believes they can. and it’s good enough for me.” I said.

In April it collapsed, the Dow falling from \$12+K to \$7K and the NASDAQ from \$2300 to about \$700..Many suffered serious losses. None of those persons EVER acknowledged to me what had happened to the market. Another acquaintance of mine made \$50K on the fall in prices. Further, “A prophet is without honor even in his own land.” The gift of prophecy of Cassandra, pious daughter of Priam of Troy, was well recognized, but the gods had cursed her. No one would believe her. This is the hidden power of the ancient Greek myths. Do you see how all of these things fit together, creatively using the Comparison Process?

Future predictions ARE possible using the Comparison Process. It’s the gift of prophecy. If you know enough and can wrap your concepts, creatively around events tightly enough to discern the velocity and direction, you know where the thing will land hard. LBJ had this gift. So did the seer, Winston Churchill as reported in C.P Snow’s The Variety of Men. This is another gift of the Comparison Process.

Understanding this, recall that Bayesian mathematical methods can create predictive values and are used widely in machine recognition programs using voice or image recognition. In this way, these programs are doing a simple, Comparison process. How we recognize voices and persons, the same way many other animals do, too. Recognition is a very important part of the COMP, as has been repeatedly shown before. Recognition of words, landmarks, the creation of maps, and so forth. The Comparison Process is Bayesian plus and resides in all human cortices, making recognition, creating creativity, creating and understanding language, math and many, many other tasks, constantly while we are awake, and often in dreams, too. But I have digressed in order to make more important points about the COMP.

9. A further problem is understanding the major functions of the cortical cell columns of human brain devoted to the Comparison Process. The next question is how does the neurophysiology of the 6 layers of the cell columns create the processes which result in the COMP? And that question is an insolvable one at present. Using the structure/function relationship and an analogy with E = MCsquared, it can be understood better. When Einstein wrote his famous equation relating matter/energy, it was in the 1910’s. Nuclear fission did not come along until the 1940’s and with fusion, about 6-7 years later. Now at last at Cardarache, France, the International Thermonuclear Exp. Reactor (ITER) will be coming on line well over breakeven within a few years. That’s 100 years of lag time before the Structure of the S/F relationship was solved on the left side compared to the right side.

Now, the Structure of the cortical cell columns creates the COMP. We know what that is. But what is the structure which does that, neurophysiologically? We don’t know, and there is an impenetrable block on this, too. It’s the N-body problem. We cannot figure out using current math/computation power what happens with N= or greater than 3 is, either. The equations go to such complexity/chaos, not even the best computers can easily solve them. Consider that the number of interacting neurons PLUS neurochemicals is in the 10K’s at least in the cortical columns. The number of genes interacting to create the human body is in the range of 25K, interacting with probably more than 25K MORE chemicals/biochemicals. When we cannot solve for N>3, how can that be done, when in fact each of those neurons might well be interacting via synapses with 1000’s of others?

So it will take a while to figure that out. The difficult we do today, the impossible takes a bit longer, to paraphrase the wag. It took us thousands of years to figure out what the cortex did, in a basic, fundamental way and will take us a lot longer to work out the unlimited workings of the Comparison Process in the cortex.
But the point is we have the mathematical Bayesian predictive values which can create basic machine recognition of voice, fingerprints, and even some simple images. But these statistical methods don’t give us language, but we have the functional origin of language, which has not heretofore been known. It’s the COMP, clearly, that repeating simple process which is the right side of the S/F equation. It will take a while before we can generate all the details of how the COMP creates a real, existing language, altho we have the E = MCsquared of that, the COMP. The same for personality disorders, let alone the emotional system, though some headway has been made recently. Now we need to solve the N-body problem for the neurophysiology/genetics/embryology of the brain cortical cell columns.

10. Let us treat description in the same way. Math cannot give us much in the way of translating all but the simplest language into numbers/equations. Describe the colors and sky of a beautiful Western sunset. Language can give us some idea. It can even give us with certain known landmarks, where that sunset took place, at Point Loma in San Diego or looking at the alpen glow in the Colorado Rockies in the Frazier River area. Math can create a digital summary of the image, as we use Jpegs all the time. But it cannot give a meaningful description of what is being seen using those numbers in the Jpeg. That’s qualitatively/quantitatively a wholly different task.

Consider this, and it’s the critical one. Can mathematics give us the way to create language? No. Can it at present give us a way to re-create creativity, modelling in some way how Einstein, Darwin and Wallace used the Comparison Process to create Relativity and evolutionary theory? No. Until it can, then true, complete AI cannot come about. Until math can create relational methods, comparison processes which re-create the complexities of language, which the Comparison Process does every day in our cortices, then math will not be able to handle meanings and much else. This limit to mathematics must limit its use in creating AI which can model realistically, human cortical functions.

Now consider measurement. We use rulers, tapes, etc. to measure lengths distances, clearly comparing the gradations on those tools to arrive at the values we get. When we measure colors of light, we can analyze the brightness with photometers and the saturation and amplitudes/frequencies of the colors. But that would take a very long time to do. Our visual cortices do that all the time with just a few 100’s ms. of work. When we compare images in our minds, while we are thinking about events in existence, such as Darwin’s finches, can the mathematics recognize what is going on? Would it have the judgement and sense to realize what this means, as did Darwin and then Wallace in his own way in Indonesia?

11. For the same reason that mathematics, even of the Bayesian kind cannot figure out language, tho it can detect targets, compute their trajectories and hit those targets, it’s a long way from that simpler task to understanding language enough to speak it, except in a stereotyped, pre-programmed, limited way. In order for that to happen there must be, very likely, a number of very important breakthroughs in pure and applied mathematics to make this happen.

12. Let’s consider an easier course of action. The Comparison process in our brains is a massive, simple process which creates creativity. It does this by means unknown to us. We CAN however describe what is happening by looking at the process using the COMP. We know there is stream of consciousness going on, where a lot of processors are doing the work, by associations and finding the relationships among events/words by the COMP. So if we can speed up this creativity, then we will be closer to creating a system which can model the Comparison Processes going on in the cortex.

How do we do this? The COMP is a self organizing, ordering system. It’s a big problem solving process operating in our cortex. It can look at a lot of comparisons, possibly using parallel processing, and come up with answers by this same creativity. The COMP can create a lot of ideas, but as one scientist said, to be good you have to have a lot of ideas. But good ideas are a dime a dozen. This implies some natural filtering is going on. The Least Energy Principle is a major one. The structure/function relationship is another. When progress is made in understanding language better, that can be translated into creativity, that is finding out what words/ideas/events have in common and finding bridging concepts, too. These creative recombinings of words/idea/images is the clue we need. When we create sentences which describe clearly what we have never seen before, that is creativity purely. The COMP does this all the time, tho. It’s uniquely creative.

What kinds of methods are used in programming to create recognition? What are the structure/function relationships of how those many programs compare to each other? This should give a common basis in which they are acting to create, roughly, the same process which can ID fingerprints, faces, or voice commands.

The Vocoder can convert an amplitude/frequency pattern of voice into an electrical signal, which can then be converted to microwave signal, be received by antennae, and then reverse translated into more electrical signals, shipped by fiber optics to the site nearest the receiving cell phone, which then receives the microwave signal, turning in back into sound by electromechanical vibrations which create the voice of the sender.

But this gives nothing useful about language, because the device does not understand at all the meanings and use of language. It does a greart job of transmitting with good clarity the signal and doing the job of translating microwave signals to sound and vice versa, but it’s empty of meaning.

What is the difference between this and the voice recognition systems being used? This computer can transliterate voice commands into written words, then act upon that word, producing the search which gives the answers to the person’s mobile phone. And then he can free his hands to do other things. However, meaning is still not there.

13. What would it take to create that meaning, that understanding of language? That’s why true AI has not yet been found. Math doesn’t yet understand the complex relationship among the words. Why we put words in the order they must be to create meaning. The words must relate to meaning. There must be relationships among those words to create meaning and the computer MUST understand/know what those are. When THAT can be done, and it can be done using the analyses using the COMP, then true AI using language can be created. That is the step missing, the step which the Comparison Process can give us. It’s the relationships among the words that give us the meaning of the word “can”. It’s NOT grammar of itself. The word string must make sense, it must have internal consistencies among the meanings of the words.

14. Take the sentence, “The Beans were in the Can.” This makes sense. “The can was in the beans” doesn’t make the same kind of sense. So it’s the sequence which determines meaning, too. This is the aspect of grammar, which is necessary, but NOT sufficient to create languiage, as has been shown before using the COMP. Knowing whether a word is a noun or adverb is not the point. It’s the complex relationship among the words which creates verbal logic, as well. And this is why AI has failed for now to create either meaningful sentences and to understand/interpret them, because the COMP was not invoked, which DOES give meaning by comparing words to each other. This gives meaning by context. Until the contextual sense can be performed by computers, by careful analysis modeling the COMP, then AI will not easily speak good English, or sensibly, either. AI CANnot understand the word, can.

15. Let us analyze using the COMP how the programmer thinks creatively. When that is done, using the COMP’s empirical introspection, then we will see how new programming methods are created. Programming is NOT science. It’s an art like creating a musical composition or creative verbal writing. It’s creative. There is no mathematical description of it possible at this time, because we do NOT have a mathematics of verbal relationships which creates meaning. However, we CAN study a number of creative programmers and learn what steps they take, using comparison processes which do that kind of creative work. and it will be a form of the Comparison Process. We can compare their work to each other and learn from those comparisons. Once that is known, computers can be programmed to create new creative computer programming methods, by trial and error, the usual way creativity proceeds. And once that can be done, progress in the field of programming will expand exponentially because each new method which is created, can be compared to the others and this will create more and more new programming methods to solve the problem of AI. We create the tools to create the tools which create the solutions.

This is what the Comparison Process model can give us. An empirical introspective approach to the living art of the cortical processes of creativity in the programmers. The computers don’t create programming progress, human brains’ cortical processors do. and if we understand that, then creating better and more methods to solve any problem will be much easier. and go much faster. Otherwise it’s all trial and error and it’s unlikely to go anywhere very soon, unless someone gets extraordinarily lucky. But winning the lottery is exceedingly unlikely in this case, altho many are willing to bet on it. As is said, playing the lottery is likely a voluntary tax on those who don’t know the laws of probability. We MUST play when the odds are for us, not against us.

As Einstein so wisely wrote, “An epistemological advance always proceeds progress in physics.” The same is true of AI. The Comparison Process is that epistemological advance in understanding the massive comparison processors in the human brain/mind interface. We don’t have to understand the complex, N-body problem of the brain’s neurophysiology, which creates the COMP. We HAVE the needed function already identified and it’s the COMP.

16. We only have to understand the Function of how programmers are creative and what skills they are using as any professional does when he works so much better and faster than others without those skills. We must learn more about programmers’ creativity. It’s a good bet a good many of those are already known. Those series of programming skills which make him a better, faster, more accurate programmer and creative besides. That is the key here. Understand the creativity of the programmers, and design that into a computer to create more computer driven/originating creativity. That by itself will give us AI far faster. There is no reason to believe otherwise. There is no theoretical reason, given the success of basic voice/image recognition programming methods to believe anything but that it can be done with work, trial and error, and an understanding of the basics. Otherwise, without the COMP it could take 100 years. And there would be little or no understanding of how it worked, either.

We know how Einstein, Wallace./Darwin, Edison, Archimedes and others created their new understandings. We need only to compare THOSE examples to those used by the programmers to find new solutions. When the COMP enhances creative progress by direct utilization by the programmers, then progress in creating computer/mathematical models of the human language will proceed very quickly because the same processes which create new creativity for computer programmers, will, create computer human language and language use and understanding. It’s recursive, self-reflexive and will likely work. One method of creating a COMP model using machines can create all the rest of AI. Create the tools which create the tools and the rest follows.

I wrote all of these creative articles simply by using the COMP, in less than 3 months’ time in a mid 60’s year old, who should not have much creativity at all. The COMP and its re-inforcing dopamine high can give that to many persons. And what could it do to boost that in a 30 year old, already creative computer programmer and analyst? The mind fairly boggles.

This is what the COMP portends. If we understand understanding, if we can create creativity, then there are far more and better answers.