Empirical Introspection and the Comparison Process

Empirical Introspection and the Comparison Process

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

“Progress in physics is always preceded by an epistemological advance.” — Albert Einstein

“Least energy rules.”

1. The Comparison Process COMP) as the basis of recognition and cognition, arsing in brain cortex, working in tandem with LTM. The COMP hallmark is recognition. seen in all major classes of advanced animals.
2. Territoriality as recognition and the COMP.
3. Lower life has biochemical forms of the COMP. Reproduction is a complementary form of it.
4. COMP creates language and meaning, COMP as universal decoder.
5. Empirical introspection (EI), insights from medical practice which prove this.
6. Basis of empirical introspection in the sciences, and scientific medicine
7. Pain and EI.
7b. Dreaming, dream interpretation and introspection
8. Reading, creating dictionaries, indexes, phone books, all empirical introspection. (EI)
9. That which is real inside of us is what we all have in common. That which is real outside of us is what we have in common with what exists in the universe outside of us.
10. Measuring as a form of the COMP
11. Confirmation of the existence of EI and the COMP: 100’s millions of times.
12. The commonalties of the creativities.
13. The source of creativity of computer programming.
14. Mathematical creativity and the COMP by Empirical introspection
15. Creativity as a form of recognition. Seeing inside the minds of creative people using the COMP
16. The LEP and origin of feedback systems.
17. The massive capabilities of the COMP, endless, unlimited.
18. Stabilities and their importance.
19. Empirical Introspection of movie making.
20. The dopamine boost built into the COMP
21. Problems of modern society related to loss of the secret of the dopamine boost and attempts to replace it with drugs, raves, etc.
22. The ubiquity in brain of the dopamine boost structure/function; Our solutions to problems are inside of us and also outside.

1. One of the Comparison Process’ (COMP) major tasks is recognition (although it is a multiplicit, complex system with many other capabilities), that is, Re-knowing, and lies at the basis of cognitive activities in the brain. The COMP in the cortex is able to create a memory of stable events, existing both within and without the nervous system. It can then compare any future event to the stored Long Term Memory (LTM) event for further processing. The function is identifying or calling up the LTM event and comparing it to that which is being seen, thought about, or interacted with to establish similarity, identity, a match, or common characteristics, associations, and/or relationships, connections. This is some of what the COMP can do. But the basic task is the recognition function. It can do this endlessly, without limitations over time. It is how we recognize speech, the sounds we call words. It is how we recognize written words. It is how we communicate with each other. Indeed if humans were not social there would be no need for words much at all, beyond a few vocalizations and grunts, etc. which many animals, including our nearest relatives have.

The recognition function is a major hallmark of the Comparison Process. Whenever recognition is seen that marks a COMP being used. We see this is the major kinds of animals, from our nearest relatives the great apes, through the primates, the rest of the mammals, the birds, reptiles, down to the fishes, all of which display an ability to recognize their fellow species, for purposes of mating and protection if heard/flock/schooling kinds of species. They have territories as well, and must recognize landmarks, scents and other features, including the sun for navigation, and moving about.

2. Territoriality of itself must necessitate the use of recognition. This means that all known animals have it, in some form or another, even down to the lowly anemones, who know self from not self and are capable of defending territory. It’s necessary for reproduction as well, surely a convincing argument for the presence of recognition in all known species above the level of sponges.

But even sponges recognize self from not self. The experiment where red and white sponges were gently broken down into their constituent cells, and then in a nutrient sea water bath reconstituted themselves once again into red and white sponges shows this.

In the immune system the cells of the body know self from not self. And it is constantly on the hunt for foreign proteins and chemicals which can disrupt function. This is a biochemical form of comparison process, just in the same way sponge self-recognition was.

The higher animals know each other, and they know where their nests/dens and territories are, they know family from outsiders by sight and scents, and they know food and dangers and predators, too. These are all recognition and necessarily imply in each animal showing those characteristics, the recognition capacity which results of their own, analogous to ours, COMP. It is a universally used process from the highest animals in the great apes down to the lowliest sponges and very likely lower.

The bacteria and algae know food, and they have protections against attacks, too. And because those very likely date back at least 3.5 Billion years, these biochemical recognition methods are very, very ancient. They extend through the entire chain of life, from the very lowest to the highest, and unite in a very real way, all life.

3. Our means of reproduction using DNA/RNA replication of the basic building blocks of the genes, the nucleotides, also is a form of the comparison process, where when the DNA or RNA polymerase during replication detects a thymidine, it adds on an adenine and vice versa (uracil in RNA, which distinguishes RNA from DNA), and the same with guanosine/cytosine pairings. It must recognize each of those nucleotides, biochemically, and then complementary processes add on the one of the other.

When the cell reproduces it duplicates the DNA chain, while it also is creating more proteins using RNA to replicate the gene sequence by complementary processes and that then goes to the ribosome where 3 DNA bases are coded (codons) into a specific amino acid, which chains build up the basic, essential proteins/polypeptides of the cell, without which the cell would not survive metabolically or structurally. These are yet other Comparison processes, albeit biochemical on the part of the DNA/RNA polymerases and their transcriptions and then creation by a similar comparison process into proteins, etc. From the very start of life to the very present, the COMP in one form or another has been essential for all life. It binds all life together from the lowest to the highest, and is a unifying characteristic of all life. That is the Comparison Process, be it replication of DNA/RNA, be it protein/polypeptide synthesis, be it knowing cellular life from other cells, be it the immune system, be it recognition of other species or self and same species, be it territoriality, and be it the highest known form, human, higher primate cortical cell columns and cortex, the Comparison process of the brain.

4. It’s very clear then with this kind a ubiquity, in animal behaviors alone that it should be found in human brains. But there it has been able to create language, by simple recognition of words, meaning by comparing those words to each other in unique contextual forms. And in creating every single kind of language, which can be translation and related using the comparison process into every other kind of known language. The COMP is a universal decoder of language and it allows every person on earth to develop their own unique ways of stating those languages, as well, our idiosyncratic speech patterns, unique to us all, that our fellow humans can identify each of us by, too. All the myriad ways of all of the languages, each stated in unique, individual ways, but each the same. From simple to enormous complexity. Understanding this fact allows us to enormosly simplifiy the complexity around us into unifying principles/observations. It sees through the “buzzing, blooming confusion” and orders it.

It has allowed us by trial and error comparisons to translate and understand the Rosetta Stone and many other extinct languages, too. It allows us to decrypt the newspaper cryptograms and more complex codes,. It has allowed us to decrypt the genetic codes as well, and even to decode the universe’ events into the natural laws we have found. It does not just create language and recognition, but it also much more.

5. It allows us to create an empirical introspection into the very innermost workings of our minds. Because the COMP is the major function of the cortex, in almost every case it gives us the critical insight into what to look for. In the medical field, this is a common practice. It’s very simply done, and it’s empirical introspection, where the mind can look at the mind. Where the mind can comprehend and study by observation the workings of the mind body and nervous system. Where we can detect and apprehend thoughts, themselves. And the exact internal, mental processes leading to language and its use.

Take the scientific method and confirmations for instance. There are scientists who find an interesting observation and they carefully describe and then publish their findings. If other scientists can observe and find the same events, then it is considered confirmed. But why that? Because the universe is what we all have in common. If others see the same events we see, and record them, it’s likely those are real and existing outside of ourselves and we are not just seeing what we want to see. We use double blind, carefully controlled, prospective studies to be sure we are not looking at what we want to find. For that reason, confirmation of events is the sine qua non of sciences. If and when others observe and describe the same acceleration of masses in earth’s gravitational field, then the 9.8 m/sec squ. value becomes established as the case and scientific, empirical truth is found. This is how it’s done. That establishes carefully done observations as true and real.

Let us extend the same method to empirical introspection. Here are some basic examples of how it’s done. When a person comes to the doctor for numbness and tingling of the fingers, we know the anatomy and the function of the nerves in the hand/arm which are clearly, provable related to those tinglings. If the thumb, forefinger, middle finger and part of the thumb side of the ring finger tingle, or are numb, we know it’s the median nerve, because that’s what has been carefully and confirmed to be the case in unlimited numbers of humans so far studied. Unless the person is medically sophisticated they would not know this and when a person states the truth, we can tell. By comparing their symptoms which they sense, to that which we know to be the case about nerves and so forth, we KNOW it’s a median nerve problem. That means we have looked by examination and history into those person’s minds and found that their statements correspond/compare to real, existing events. That is provably empirical introspection is it not? This can be done with almost all of the nerves in the body, everyday, in every nation where there are good medical professionals. It’s a fact. It’s common to all humans. There are other tests such as the electromyogram which can also independently confirm what the patients says is going on. This is valid, empirical introspection

Let’s go further to a more difficult problem, looking at pain. People can have pain in certain parts of their bodies, and we know what is commonly seen by building up huge databases of medical information. Suppose the person reports a bad, throbbing headache, periodically, which her mother also had, and a sister has, too. Further, the headache are often presaged by spots in the eyes, or scintillations of light, which are called scotomata. We do an exam, find no neurological abnormalities, compare the signs/symptoms to our differential diagnostic tables, and make a working diagnosis of migraine headaches. Often then we do tests to see if there are brain structural abnormalities, hypertension, etc., which can cause similar headaches. We give a triptan medication and if the headaches are frequent, a med which will likely prevent a lot of them. If the triptans work and the headaches abate, then it’s very likely migraines. This method can be extended to other kinds of pain, as well. This yet again, is another empirical introspection into the senses, the most difficult one of all, pain. But we have tests and many other ways of telling what is real and what is not.

The same is true of foot pain, back pain, chest pain, etc. The same can be easily extended to the vision, and touch sensations, too. We can even investigate loss/absence of gravity sense, also. This is all empirical introspection, because we know that all humans have characteristic states and conditions which they report by introspection which correspond very well to known anatomy and common reports. Because we all have these organ systems in common. Just as we all have events in existence in common. It’s the similar analogous process to scientific investigation, observation and reporting, and is used very day all over the world. What we have in common is real, within our bodies or without. That’s the key. A trained observer, the medical professional, relies upon his OWN introspective, trained methods, to make a diagnosis of a condition reported by the introspection of the patient. This is completely legitimate and practical. It’s not just that introspection of the patient, it’s also the introspection, and recognition of the condition by the medico, which is at play here. And it’s valid and reliable. It’s not perfect, but nothing in this world is. But it works and is practical.

7b. Dreaming and dreaming states

The problem of dream interpretation is the problem of introspection. How do we know what dreams mean has been the bugaboo of the entire field since Freud’s “The Interpretation of Dreams”. Most of it simply is not believed because of lack of substantiation for his approach. A great many New Agers also talk about dream interpretation with an equivalent lack of credible substantiation.

But there is a way and in the clinical neuroscience it’s been used for years. How do we know that dreams exist? Because of the Rule of Commonality (RoC). We know that pain exists in people for the same reason, everyone knows about it and has realistic appreciation for those injuries and related problems such as migraine headaches with also do exist. The same is true of pleasure and other findings, introspective.

But in specific cases? That’s a tough one. When a patient comes in with numbness, either persistent or intermittent in the hand, we can tell if it’s real or not by several techniques. First, does it correspond (compare) to real sensory nerve distributions or not? If hand/glove kind it’s not always clear. With a careful exam we can detect numbness and tingling with specific methods and find on electromyograms (EMG) whether or not the reports of numbness have a concomitant injury shown by increased latencies and slowed nerve conduction speeds. The above can provide realistic and SPECIFIC determinations that the individual complaints are real. That is, the introspective reports are the case.

But how can we do this in dreams? We know they exist, but reports of dream content are colored by length of time elapsed between the dream and report, emotional factors such as social concerns about appropriateness, etc. But occasionally there are real cases where we CAN show this. I’ve been a field biologist for over 50 years. My observational skills are developed.

I have two cases. This first where a recurrent dream of walking along a weathered wooden pier with planks missing, and the green water below with waves sloshing against the piles and at times almost close enough to get my feet wet. In each case over 40 years, I was simply terrified I’d fall into the water and get drowned. In each case of these repeated nightmares, I was usually stressed by situational problems at work, etc.

But the key was, we were showing old family movies of the time we ere in St. Pete, FL., and on one of them it showed a movie of that same pier, same color water (all my dreams are in color) and at once I recognized that that was the source of the dream. I’d walked on it with my father, and had been terrified. But I’d forgotten the event.

This was clearly Freudian repressed memory, because for some 45 years it wasn’t clear WHERE the dreams had come from. Within a few weeks, that dream tried to recur, I just said while dreaming, this is that old memory and I won’t have this any more. And did not, and haven’t since.

Once the source of the terror was found, and realized what it was, in tandem with Freudian neurosis abatement observations (which argues that those are real and existing by the RoC), the dream stopped. It has never recurred, either. I had a similar dream with a swaying elevator, and once figured out, some 10 years later, when riding on the SAME elevator, the recognition came on me that THAT was where it had come from. It tried to recur, and I abolished it the same way.

That dreams can appear to be remnants of older memories many times, which we seem to have forgotten, not just repressed, seems to be the case. The fantastic elements of dreams, events appearing, disappearing and so forth, are simply NOT real and unexplainable.

However, for this one. I can fly sometimes while dreaming. I lift up off the ground and take off. Sadly, no one who’s ever seen me having one of these dreams has reported any levitation of my body!! But the one thing I do recall is that the flying was always very slow. I’d get caught up in wires, etc. and thinking about it, it takes a LOT of processing power to fly, esp. very high, because then the complexity of the surrounding scenery would take a LOT more processing power to recreate that. I am NOT a hang glider person, tho I have no fear of flying at all.

In this case of flying dreams, they are completely synthetic and cannot possibly compare to any real memories at all. In the case of lucid dreaming reports, the persons can also get control of their dreams and create fictional activities, too. Therefore it’s hard to believe the dictum that ALL dreams are a result of memories, only. Those memories might provide a groundwork, but the mind can build on that, actually. We know this because the scene changes in dreams are NOT real because things simply appear and disappear in violation of physical laws. That is magical thinking, which isn’t real any more than one can fly or cause objects several meters from one, to move into one’s hand. That my dreams have done a lot of.

However, I was using computers about 1995, and at the time moved up from a low baud of a few 100 to a 2400 baud rate of screen scrolling. It exceeded the ability of my brain to follow by a factor of several times. But bless my brain it DID try to keep up, tho never really succeeded. Within weeks of that time, tho, my flying dreams ALSO sped up, markedly and I wasn’t getting slowed down or tangled up in wires again Since then, continuing to use faster and faster computers, I can fly a LOT faster and higher, too, even to this day.

Probably, visual processing speed in my brain sped up to its maximum by using the new high speed modem. And my dreams got faster. One suspects that using computers has speed up the the brain processing of we humans, where such is possible, too. As speed of intellectual processing is related to 85% of IQ, because the IQ tests are timed, therefore this creates a reasonable conclusion from my dreaming of flying, that computers may in fact speed up our brains and make us proportionately smarter, in that respect.

These are the ONLY realistic interpretation of dreams I’ve ever been able to make. Should OTHERS have similar findings, then we can begin by the RoC, to learn more about dreams. Until then it’s a lot of speculation as Father Freud first formally showed us. We must have a LOT more testable data to compare with before we can more reliably decode and understand our specific dreams.

8. Let us now extend this introspection to the recognition processes we see when people read a dictionary or thesaurus or map, etc. Do we not have and see the same activities in all persons who refer to those lists and texts? Do we not see the same process which creates those texts and indices and the taxonomic Tree of Life of all the species which exist? Each of which can be read by anyone, using the same process. Of course we do. The Comparison process is what we all have in common, be it reading a text, finding a word in a dictionary, or finding something on a map, or the creation of the map, besides. This yet another kind of empirical introspection. It’s valid, and meets the criteria for validity. it can be done again and again and provably is the same process both in using the dictionary and creating it. The same, Comparison Process each time.

9. This is confirmation of the existence of the COMP in our brain cortex, that it’s a higher function, as well. Because when those areas are ablated by strokes, trauma or other damage, those reading, speech, and comprehension functions are gone. The structure/function rule of the brain has been shown to be true without limit, so far. For every function of the brain, there is a corresponding structure which creates that function. There is the speech center for talking and reading and writing. There is a right inferior temporal lobe for face identification. There is the visual cortex for interpreting signals from our retina which reproduces with extraordinary accuracy events which we look at in all their shades and colour frequencies and corresponding colours. The same is true of the other senses. Same is true of our feelings. We all have these in common. We all have the same emotions in common and all of these can be related to a structure in the brain.

We all have consciousness in common. This is the awareness and knowledge of that which is around us and inside of us. Ideas/words express this knowledge carefully and fairly accurately too. We have those words in common do we not, in one language or dialect or the many others? This establishes those ideas/words/images as real and existing in our brains/minds. The reports are real, both those inside and outside. The words and knowledge are the same. When we say something, we know it, and can communicate it. And in all of these cases, the Comparison process is working. The writing and the reading of those words is of the same origin, the COMP.

We have our consciences in common, located mainly in the frontal lobes, by which we internalize society’s restrictions and acceptable activities. We compare that to what we do and what others do. In the laws of nature, we compare the behaviors and descriptions of events in existence outside of us, comparable also to the same structure of moral laws, which we use daily, all of us in common. The Legal laws are the same. The templates/forms/structures of logic, math, and others are of the same kind, readable and creatable and modifiable by the COMP.

10. In measuring it’s all Comparison Process. This has been proven time and again, for everyone. Anyone can take a ruler or tape and measure lenghts and distances. Anyone with any training can read a map. The COMP is real because of these unlimited, repetitive, confirming facts. The organization of the Tree of Life by these endless COMP events, that of the periodic table of elements, that of the Hertzsprung/Russell diagram (which organizes into a coherent whole the trillions of observable stars, each a confirmation of that comparison/correspondence to the HRD), that of the repetitions of the same measurements of time and calendars, and our words, images, and the written words which exactly correspond/compare to those mental ideas/words/images. This same commonality of use by the same/similar variations on them, shows they are real.

11. The 100’s of millions of telephone books and dictionaries. The endless listing of street addresses, and the 100’s of millions of maps and templates of all sorts. Endless in its variations, and all real and existing, as the that single, simple Comparison Process existing in all of our cortices which does the thinking, information processing and understanding and speaking and reading. Each and every one of the 34 million known chemical compounds (of an estimated quadrillions possible, (mostly in what’s left of the rain forests) has been named, classified, organized and indexed by that. Is that enough evidence, or are we dealing with what the British justifiably call bloody mindedness?

The Comparison Process is confirmed by these events in the millions and even billions of examples. If several thousands show it, 100 millions show it beyond all reasonable doubt. And any variations among us in reading/writing those lists, is simply the endless variations on a common theme.

12. Let us take creativity. Because we know what to look for, the COMP, we can see inside the minds of those being creative. They have often told us how they did it, from Kekule to Einstein, whose 5 discoveries created Relativity. We know that Newton found the spectrum and realized what it was by comparing it to the rainbow. We know that Newton AND Leibniz both found the calculus, slightly different forms of it, but essentially the same. What were the insights and creativity which led to both of their insights? They’d be comparison processes very similar to the insight of Archimedes whose text showing the calculus from 2300 years ago we now have, also. Compare those 3 men’s insights. That is the mathematical form of Creativity using the COMP.

We have brilliantly creative computer programmers. What are the exact means by which they create new programming techniques? How did Borland create resident pop-up programs? What were his insights as to how to do that? Take every major advance in programming and find the ways in which those insights arose, and compare and cross check them with the number of very similar creative advances made by other programmers. In this way we can again look inside the heads of the programmers for the COMP which creates the creativity of programmers. And then we can model that using a computer system, and create a creative computer, which creativity can proceed at speeds of millions of times faster, than we whose COMP works at about 100-200 msec., compared to a potentially unlimited speed of the quantum computers now working.

14. Gauss, Riemann, and Lobatschevsky almost simultaneously created non-Euclidean geometry. So did a 12th Century monk, but thought it was so silly he didn’t continue it. ALL FOUR found the same thing, that the parallel line axiom was NOT necessary to build up a consistent geometry. and so developed that from which the modern space/time geometry is used in physics today. This is a very similar comparison process creativity in four mathematicians. The same is true of the rest of mathematical creativity and describes how Ramanujan and all the others performed their creative magic.

The same is true of scientific creativity, or verbal creativity, of creative writing. The COMP model extends itself by logic and by proxy to every other field of the sciences and arts, and music, as well.

15. Because we see that these creativity events are ALSO recognitions of the value of that which is created. Creativity is a form of recognition. The recognition by Darwin and Wallace, that on remote isles, a single species tended to diversify into many species and when those diversified enough it’d lead to every species known developing from previously existing forms, that is, evolutionary model which is now scientific fact. Evolution has been confirmed literally 10 millions of times. If evolution is confirmed by those many instances, then how much more confirmed is the comparison process in our brains by the 10 billions of times it’s confirmed every day when 7.5 million humans use it?

We can see inside our own brains/minds this kind of COMP which created the same findings by different men at different times. That commonality of events, which is the key to empirical introspection. We can actually get inside the heads of our most creative people now and see how their minds are working. We can SEE the creative acts. We can see the organizing power of the Comparison process as it organizes each and every part of our dictionaries, our maps, our indices, our everything. Organizing to create knowledge. Organizing to create prediction and control in our consciousness and our consciences, as well as control of industrial production, agriculture, etc.

16. It underlies the Least Energy Rule because that is a COMP. Compare the outputs and costs of each method being studied by the LEP. The least energy one is favored, by the COMP, which is yet an LEP, too.

It’s the feedback loop you see, the original one. It processes and creates a product, which can be endlessly and consistently fed back in, to create more output. Each fed back in. The Comparison Process even explains, uniquely, and cleanly, the feedback systems. How’s that for practicality and utility?

It organizes, unifies, simplifies and yet allows all complexities and endless variations within itself and those to be more clearly understood. Simple, yet complex. Easy, yet surrounds itself with endless variations of incredible size and complexity, which hid/hides and camouflaged(s) it from us for 1000’s of years.

17. It’s all very similar, we see now. Simple, powerful, endless in variations, and because it does a very great deal with only a little, it’s least energy rule obedient and complete amenable to thermodynamic analysis. Because it does the same in every field, it’s a huge simplification, but allows endless complexity to be developed, and understood and explains in details those endless variations on a theme, be it living forms, be it mathematics, be every language and the dialects, be it visual arts, music in all its endless variations of rhythms, styles, scales and modes, and even fashions and design of cars, architecture and much else. It even explains each human’s, each living form’s genetic and personality and behavioral uniqueness and yet commonality with all other living species, alive or extinct. It does a LOT with a little. It’s efficient.

18. What are stabilities, the Djed of the ancient Egyptians? Those are maintained similarities, samenesses. We see this in trees, rocks, stars, matter, and the repeating, reiterating process by which those are built, maintained and broken down. Stabilities are created by the Pauli Exclusion Principle and chemical bonding. Stabilities are Least Energy Principle forms. CO2 and H2O are stable because they are least energy. No chemical energy can be obtained from those molecules. And upon those stabilities of water and carbon dioxide molecules, plus nitrogen and trace elements, all life has been built, within the endless cycling of CO2 and H2O molecules’ stabilities.

The COMP is also a LEP stability, the most common denominator of our mental processes. That is why the cortical cell columns are almost exactly alike. That is why but for the motor cortex, the micrographic examinations of the 6 layers of the entire cortex, except for their neuronal synaptic connections to each other and cortical cell columns(which demonstrates their unique functions of visual, language, sensation, hearing, musical, emotional, etc., cortical functions) are almost exactly the same. That is why the electroencephalogram over every single piece of cortex reveals the same alpha, beta, and theta activities. It even explains the 14 and 6 EEG activity over the motor cortex which lacks layer 4 and has Betz cells instead.

19. It’s been easy to analyze films using the Comparison Process as well. We can use it to see inside the heads of the directors, producers and script writers, and how they are inside the head of the audiences. How they are using humor, surprise, action and creativity to entertain and enthrall their audiences so they keep coming back again and again to watch the movie in the theaters, on the Internet, or by buying a DVD at home or with friends.

20. This is why the COMP will succeed, in the long run. Not only is it backed up by the LEP, but it’s also reinforced by the dopamine boost. Once individuals rediscover this ancient boost and use it creatively for inspiration and better lives, and given the positive feedback nature of the COMP/dopamine system in our cortices, not much is going to stop this process. In the long run on earth and the rest of our universe, least energy rules.

When creativity and understanding are understood, as they now are, this will create, potentially a renaissance in the arts and sciences which can dwarf anything yet seen. In each of us, this massive, repetitive, endlessly/unlimited process is active. Understand it, learn how to boost and inspire yourselves. This creative Spark of Life exists within all of us. It’s the Gotterfunken, the veriest spark of God Himself, the “chi”, the Atman, the feeling of Enlightenment, those mystical feelings and states. And any of us can learn to call it up, learn to use it for ourselves and others. It’s very powerful and underlies all good leadership, all loyalties, all inspiration. It in its best forms it is love incarnate, be it agape, eros, philias, maternitas, or love of country, or our pets and possessions. It underlies the “AHA” or Eureka emotions of discovery/creation. It underlies our jokes and witty entertainment. It underlies all those feelings of awe, of astonishment, of childlike wonder. All the goodness of life itself.

21. We find that our modern societies we have a great many problems to solve. What better than to use the Comparison Process to solve those? It’s there within all of us, immanent, and working. Is this not a good solution? Everyone has the potential to do it. Because everyone has those same, cortical cell columns, the same structures and the functions, the COMP and the dopamine releasers built in.

We find the drug additions, which are simply attempts to feel better, to replace that “loving feeling” that good feeling which has been lost. These are many of the emptinesses of modern society, the malaise. We’ve “lost that loving feeling” and we can’t quite “get it back”. It’s the dopamine boost. In the societies we find the young turning to raves, and rock concerts and sex, and other self-destructive, damaging activities. Because the dopamine boost secret has been lost. People turn from the main stream churches to fundamentalism, to the exciting church services of the same, where that has been preserved. When most church services were once exciting and rejuvenation experiences, they are now too often boring and not re-inforcing, because they do NOT boost the dopamine in those who attend them. Staid, quiet, laid back and not interesting. They’ve lost that loving feeling. and just can’t get it back.

22. Yet it’s there inside each of us. Everyone has dopamine in their brains/bodies. Everyone has the Comparison Process which can release it in all the myriad ways. Dopamine boost is innate in our very natures. It palpably, provably drives the emotions, it inspires, it creates love. The dopamine boost we feel when with friends and loved ones. That’s the self-reinforcing system created by our minds/brains. Reinforce it, make it become part of the LTM, and you can have it any time you need it. That’s the key, regardless of how we find it, let the outcomes be good in the long run, and by their fruits we will know the best ways. The answers are there, our COMP is set up to find them. Here inside and within each of us are the solutions to our problems within and without.

Let a Revelation in understanding create a Kuhnian Revolution.

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

Table of contents
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.