Threesology Research Journal
Artificial Intelligence and 3sology (56K)
Page 2

Note: the contents of this page as well as those which precede and follow, must be read as a continuation and/or overlap in order that the continuity about a relationship to/with the typical dichotomous assignment of Artificial Intelligence (such as the usage of zeros and ones used in computer programming) as well as the dichotomous arrangement of the idea that one could possibly talk seriously about peace from a different perspective... will not be lost (such as war being frequently used to describe an absence of peace and vice-versa). However, if your mind is prone to being distracted by timed or untimed commercialization (such as that seen in various types of American-based television, radio, news media and magazine publishing... not to mention the average classroom which carries over into the everyday workplace), you may be unable to sustain prolonged exposures to divergent ideas about a singular topic without becoming confused, unless the information is provided in a very simplistic manner.

AI and 3sology pages:

Artificial Intelligence and 3sology Introduction
pg1 pg2 pg3 pg4 pg5 pg6 pg7 pg8
pg9 pg10 pg11 pg12 pg13 pg14 pg15 pg16
pg17 pg18 pg19 pg20 pg21 pg22 pg23 pg24
pg25 pg26 pg27 pg28 pg29 pg30 pg31 pg32
pg33 pg34 pg35 pg36 pg37 pg38 pg39 pg40
pg41 pg42 pg43 pg44        

For those of us who may periodically view intelligence as the lofted, ego-centric description of behavior(s) characteristic to humans... and is little more than the so-called intelligence we attribute to dogs, horses, and the occasional insistence of a child that their dolly or stuffed animal is really smart, (etc.), then this thing being described as "intelligence" is on par with the behavioral abilities each species exhibits within the constraints of its biology and physiology. (e.g. bees and honey hives, antlions and burrows, birds and nests, salmon returning to place of birth, orientation of migrating birds and insects, protective circling of musk oxen, etc. In such a situation, the word "intelligence" being used by science is akin to the word "god" being used by those leaning towards some religious inclination... because religions have adopted the convention of claiming they own the word and any discussion related to it... just as they do with the word "morality". By comparing the word "intelligence" with the word "god", we can see that humanity is seeking that which embodies an artificial representation thereof. In the case of A.I. (AI), it is being sought for in some manually activated mechanical apparatus. In the case of (a) god, it is sought for in a manually articulated book called the Bible, Koran, etc...

antlion with pit geometry(7K)
Antlion and geometrics of a pit
antlion pits (20K)
Antlion pits as inverted pyramids

musk oxen in a circle (35K)

(This photo is from a page that is part of an anti-evolution perspective.)

In the more distant past, there were multiple beliefs concerning the existence of multiple gods, both good and bad. Those who could create the best verbal portraits of one or more of these gods were considered specialists... the diviners of a greater truth to be held up as sacred. Those who argued against such practices of mythology were subjected to various social harassments, and even death, such as in the case of Socrates. How dare he talk out against the revered gods! Likewise, how dare anyone talk out against the present day god called AI research. Just because the actual reality of such a god remains an elusive character, like the golden fleece of Jason or the Holy grail of Jesus; does not make them any less real to those believing therein. How dare anyone refer to AI as the modern day practice of a (1) myth... and chase after it like a desert (2) mirage... while entertaining themselves with sleight-of-hand (3) magic tricks of a contortionist's logic constrained by the limits of physiological parameters surrounded by innuendoes of dimensionlessness! Oh what audacity for someone to suggest AI research is a modern day form of trying to transmute lead into gold... and then having AI researchers define extraneous research discoveries found along the way as the actual treasure! Hypocrisy takes many forms.

Being able to create robotic entities to interact with humans in described settings only shows us how much of human behavior functions as simplistic routine programs sometimes called habits. Even so-called impromptu settings or occasions which depart from one's typical day to day routine are actually described settings in which a particular perspective may come to play the dominant role and influence conversation. The so-called unrehearsed setting quickly degrades from an original one into a commonality that may come to focus on a particular topic and activity according to the most persuasive person in a group seeking to control the situation and make it more (comfortably) familiar to them. Robotic systems can be accordingly programmed and give the impression of spontaneity and therefore having achieved a certain type of humanness. But neither the robot nor the programmer can be described as intelligent unless this is the criteria for which intelligence is to be measured and thus have to similarly reflect. Robots will remain robots and humans will remain humans, even if the systems are inter-meshed at sometime in the future and referred to as a cybernetic organism. Anything can be called intelligent if the parameters of the definition are controlled as a function of accepted sociability. For example, the concept of a creator god is a reality because we make it so. We could just as easily accept a pantheon of human-like, insect-like, extra-terrestrial-like, or plant-like gods as well.

From many gods with individual forms to a single god with multiple dimensions, the plurality, the "Many" persists in a shrouded formula of self-deception. Monotheism, like AI, is an artificial construct. The present multiple descriptions of (a) god found in different cultures attests to the fact that "Monotheism", a single god, is but a point of view relative to the observer. So is a representation of AI. As it stands, the made up god known as "intelligence" who is said to participate in the practice of multiple "intelligent designs", and created multiple forms (flavors) of human intelligence that is trying to create another (AI) intelligence in their image. Such is one variety of a 3sological approach applied to the topic of AI research... where one type of artificiality practices the creation of another artificiality that is practicing the creation of yet another artificiality. For example, the (artificial) concept of god supposedly created humanity whose variability is a biologically based (artificial) construct trying to create an Artificial Intelligence, yet humans don't typically understand themselves as an artificiality as defined by the part they play as a happenstance life-form variability dependent on an environmental program that is degrading and the human species does not know how to reboot itself after the biological development program is rewritten with a (triplet DNA) code that is not dependent on a three-patterned environmental event.

But to say that humans are themselves a type of artificial intelligence is the practice of a heretic. A blasphemer. An infidel. For those engaged in antiquated religious beliefs, they might well say that to try to create life, to create an intelligence on par with that of humanity, is trying to play god; and everyone knows there is only one god... a god humanity has made in its image of intelligent design. Yet those who have ventured on the path of questioning religious beliefs might say that God is limited by the limitations of design inherent in so-called human intelligence from which concepts are a summation of experiences... which includes accumulated knowledge as a part thereof.

However, let us step outside this stream of thought in order to perceive the present topic from a drier place closer to the home shores of those who embrace AI research as one does a favorite spot for fishing and dreaming, by indulging in a more conventional perspective using a definition of intelligence imbibed with constraints... like a set of rules applied to a given task and sometimes referred to as a game (or government, or "system" of justice, etc...). Using the constraints imposed by way of a narrow definition, we provide for a sand-box in which to map out a territory in which to lay out our intellectual toys that we may authoritatively guard, if by no other means than kicking sand in another's face. As such, let us re-begin this sojourn with a moment's stretch-and-yawn respite by adopting the intellectual innocence of a novice in the philosophical arts, by presenting a discussion of Artificial Intelligence with an introduction culled from the Britannica:

(Artificial Intelligence is) the ability of a digital computer or computer-controlled robot to perform tasks commonly associated with intelligent beings. The term is frequently applied to the project of developing systems endowed with the intellectual processes characteristic of humans, such as the ability to reason, discover meaning, generalize, or learn from past experience. Since the development of the digital computer in the 1940s, it has been demonstrated that computers can be programmed to carry out very complex tasks—as, for example, discovering proofs for mathematical theorems or playing chess—with great proficiency. Still, despite continuing advances in computer processing speed and memory capacity, there are as yet no programs that can match human flexibility over wider domains or in tasks requiring much everyday knowledge. On the other hand, some programs have attained the performance levels of human experts and professionals in performing certain specific tasks, so that artificial intelligence in this limited sense is found in applications as diverse as medical diagnosis, computer search engines, and voice or handwriting recognition.

What is intelligence?

All but the simplest human behaviour is ascribed to intelligence, while even the most complicated insect behaviour is never taken as an indication of intelligence. What is the difference? Consider the behaviour of the digger wasp, Sphex ichneumoneus. When the female wasp returns to her burrow with food, she first deposits it on the threshold, checks for intruders inside her burrow, and only then, if the coast is clear, carries her food inside. The real nature of the wasp's instinctual behaviour is revealed if the food is moved a few inches away from the entrance to her burrow while she is inside: on emerging, she will repeat the whole procedure as often as the food is displaced. Intelligence—conspicuously absent in the case of Sphex—must include the ability to adapt to new circumstances.

Psychologists generally do not characterize human intelligence by just one trait but by the combination of many diverse abilities. Research in AI has focused chiefly on the following components of intelligence: learning, reasoning, problem solving, perception, and using language.

Source: "Artificial Intelligence (AI) ." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.

Now let me provide a short article concerning brain neuron (synapse) inter-connectivity,
since it plays an important role in brain functioning, i.e. "intelligence":

Brain circuitry findings could shape computer design

Guosong Liu, a neuroscientist at the Picower Center for Learning and Memory at MIT, reports new information on neuron design and function in the March 7 (2004) issue of Nature Neuroscience that he says could lead to new directions in how computers are made.

While computers get faster all the time, they continue to lack any form of human intelligence. While a computer may beat us at balancing a checkbook or dominating a chessboard, it still cannot easily drive a car or carry on a conversation.

Computers lag in raw processing power--even the most powerful components are dwarfed by 100 billion brain cells--but their biggest deficit may be that they are designed without knowledge of how the brain itself computes.

While computers process information using a binary system of zeros and ones, the neuron, Liu discovered, communicates its electrical signals in trinary--utilizing not only zeros and ones, but also minus ones. This allows additional interactions to occur during processing. For instance, two signals can add together or cancel each other out, or different pieces of information can link up or try to override one another.

On and off Light Switch (11K)

(Let me interject some "trinary" comments): In this sense, there is no binary on/off switching taking place. If a neuron is turned "off," this very likely equates with sentient death, with respect to a particular neuron or brain cell. Therefore, we might well venture the presumption that computation is taking place with neurons that are always "on," though the value of this "ON-ness" may not be serviceably equitable with our present categories of definition related to what we customarily assign to an understanding of something that is on; such as a light or other electron-based non-biological "alive-ness." We might want to say there is some form of "sleep-mode" functionality, even though there remains brain activity even when a person (or other animal) is asleep. Many of us have seen the "running in the fields" jerking motions of dreaming dogs while asleep.

Instead of using the analogies of numbers (-1, 0, 1) to label the trinary functioning characteristic of a neuron, perhaps a more "visual-able" graphic image would be of value in terms of assisting a larger comprehension base of readers. To this end, I visualize the neuron as a glass with liquid though it is a "glass" shaped in the form of a long tube interconnected with one or more other neurons, and not a drinking glass such as you would set on a table, counter, or shelf. (Choose whatever liquid you prefer such as water, beer, koolaid, coffee, wine, whiskey, soda pop, etc...) The glass always maintains some measure of a van der Waal's force in terms of having some liquid present, or the neuron would be dead. Even though you and I may not be able to see the level as measured by any conventional means, it exists:

  1. This would be what some refer to as the minus one.
  2. The "zero" would be the glass in a half full/half empty state.
  3. The "one" would be the flow to the next neuron that can create a state of negative one-ness/ zero-ness/ or one-ness in it.

At each "height" in the tube, there are what may be called "— if needed —" pressure relief valves that may not necessarily have a single spigot nor exist in the same place from one neuron to the next. The "spigot" maybe in the form of a chandelier fountain sometimes seen at fancy social gatherings (in movies anyway). Changes in the structure of the neuron due to disease, injury or diet can increase or decrease the degree and duration of porosity, with respect to valve action. The speed of the liquid through the tube also has an effect on how much or little is "effused" out. Hence, in this model, each of the three "levels" have three possible directions: up/down/sideways (in/out/sideways, forward/back/sideways). Like the equilibrium functions of our inner ear. Neuron activity may very well function like the three interconnected semi-circular canals. Perhaps there are other parallels to be made as well... but they would have no import if there is an over-riding orientation to perceive in binary even though a trinary reality exists. H.O.B.

Let us now return to the article:

One reason the brain might need the extra complexity of another computation component is that it has the ability to ignore information when necessary; for instance, if you are concentrating on something, you can ignore your surroundings. "Computers don't ignore information," Liu said. "This is an evolutionary advantage that's unique to the brain."

Behaviorally speaking, computers are "hyper-vigilant." Like an animal (human or otherwise) that is constantly surveying its environment for potential threats or possible sources of sustenance. It is impulsive in terms of reacting spontaneously. It doesn't think, it merely reacts reflexively, without a capacity for reflection... (H.O.B., 5 March 2012)

Liu, associate professor of brain and cognitive sciences, said an important element of how brain circuits work involves wiring the correct positive, or "excitatory" wires, with the correct negative, or "inhibitory" wires. His work demonstrates that brain cells contain many individual processing modules that each collects a set number of excitatory and inhibitory inputs. When the two types of inputs are correctly connected together, powerful processing can occur at each module.

This work provides the first experimental evidence supporting a theory proposed more than 20 years ago by MIT neuroscientist Tomaso Poggio, the Eugene McDermott Professor in the Brain Sciences, in which he proposed that neurons use an excitatory/inhibitory form to process information.

H.O.B. note: However, such a model as the excitatory/inhibitory formula does not allow us to portray the presence of wave motions occurring as reverberations. In an excitatory/inhibitory model, we are inclined to think in terms of "immediate go" and "immediate stop", without entertaining the notion of pressure/vacuum with a mediator... which would thus reveal a third condition. If electrical brain impulses work as a go or stop switch, there is no echo or rippling effect (like water in a pool after an object is dropped in). Yet, the fact that we experience after-thoughts, reflections, and "uncontrolled" repetition (like a song or music that repeats over and over again); suggests the existence of a third entity between an excitatory and inhibitory phase. In other words, there must be something which initiates the excitation and inhibition that is best accounted for by not referring to it as an inhibitor or excitor (with a binary only formula).

Now Back to the article:

By demonstrating the existence of tiny excitation/inhibition modules within brain cells, the work also addresses a huge question in neuroscience: What is the brain's transistor, or fundamental processing unit? For many years, neuroscientists believed that this basic unit of computing was the cell itself, which collects and processing signals from other cells. By showing that each cell is built from hundreds of tiny modules, each of which computes independently, Liu's work adds to a growing view that there might be something even smaller than the cell at the heart of computation.

Once all the modules have completed their processing, they funnel signals to the cell body, where all of the signals are integrated and passed on. "With cells composed of so many smaller computational parts, the complexity attributed to the nervous system begins to make more sense," Liu said.

Liu found that these microprocessors automatically form all along the surface of the cell as the brain develops. The modules also have their own built-in intelligence that seems to allow them to accommodate defects in the wiring or electrical storms in the circuitry: if any of the connections break, new ones automatically form to replace the old ones. If the positive, "excitatory" connections are overloading, new negative, "inhibitory" connections quickly form to balance out the signaling, immediately restoring the capacity to transmit information.

The discovery of this balancing act, which occurs repeatedly all over the cell, provides new insight into the mechanisms by which our neural circuits adapt to changing conditions.

This work is funded by the National Institutes of Health and the RIKEN-MIT Neuroscience Research Center.

Using computers with an underlying binary code may never be able to imitate or exceed the so-called intelligence of humans if humans use a different type of patterned code such as the triple formula found in DNA. If the human brain uses a triple code, then a computer using a double (binary) code can not be expected to duplicate human processes using a triple code. However, it must be understood that that which we may presently describe as an indication of intelligence is little more than an unidentified usage of a two-based orientation being used by humans that may or may not have the capacity to take advantage of a three-based cognitive system. Many of the ideas and activities presently being described as indications of human uniqueness and intelligence may just be practiced elaborations of unacknowledged binary orientations, even though humanity has an underlying genetic probability that it will one day evolve towards a greater usage of a three-patterned cognitive orientation. Humanity may predominantly be habituated towards a dichotomous perspective and it is this reason for the binary obsession... and not that such a usage gives evidence of a fundamental characteristic that can not or will not be exceeded as a need for the adoption or a trinary system becomes the most desirable alternative.

Capital letters in Binary code (6K) Lower case letters in Binary code (6K) 15 Numbers in Binary code (6K)

source for letters:
Source for numbers:

On and off Light Switch (11K)

The binary code uses zeros and ones translated into the electrical circuit of off and on switching... which takes place at fast speeds. A binary code is used because so much of human history and associated 'sociality' of day to day inter-activity uses various binary references such as man/woman, here/there, high/low, etc... even though there has been an increase in three-patterned ideas such as ending sentences with three punctuation marks (period- question mark- exclamation), three social class divisions (lower- middle- upper), three grades of gasoline based on octane rating at petrol pumps (for example: 87- 89- 91... with diesel distinguished as a fuel oil), three branches to the U.S. government (Executive- Legislative- Judicial), three U.S. clothing sizes (small- medium- large), three items in fast-food combo-meals (drink- sandwich, side item), three main meals of the day (breakfast- lunch- supper), three University degrees (Bachelor- Master's- PhD), three trimesters to human pregnancy, etc...

With the usage of a binary code for computation, it is clear that the formula is related to a right-brain (old mammal brain) attribute, and that the usage of a three-based logic to enhance functionality is due to the slow usage of a three-patterned left-brain (new mammal brain) attribute. In other words, we have not yet learned how to use a three-based atomic structure to create a three-based computing system. Instead, we create a binary system because we are still thinking very primitively, and gather information from the past as a means to develop the notion of a precedence to validate and give support to a usage thereof.

Left and Right brain hemisphere attributes

***Note: Much of the brain illustration shown above was adapted from page 106 of Dean Falk's book entitled "Brain Dance," 1992.

3-patterned formula to brain hemisphere attributes:

When we look at the assigned culturally recognized attributes of the brain, we can see a distinct (over-lapping) 1-patterned, or 2-patterned, or 3-patterned arrangement. (Reminder: when a person gets a stroke in the left hemisphere of the brain it affects the right side of the body, and vice-versa.)

Left Hemisphere
(Predominantly 3-patterned)


Major Premise
Minor Premise

Time Sequencing:
Seconds ~ Minutes ~ Hours
Past ~ Present ~ Future
Day ~ Week ~ Month


Right Body Side:
Tri-cuspid heart valve
Three-lobed lung
Right Hemisphere
(Predominantly 2-patterned)

Macro versus Micro
Whole versus Part
Inner versus Outer

Major Scale vs Minor Scale
Loud versus Soft (Quiet)
Consonance vs Dissonance

Visuospatial: (Art)
Background vs Foreground
Light vs Dark (Contrasts)
1 Dimension vs 2 Dimensions

Pain versus Pleasure
Positive vs Negative
Love versus Hate

Left Body Side:
Bi-cuspid heart valve
Two-lobed lung
Human Heart

The correlations of two and three being made on this page are not typical considerations. However, I did come across a single reference concerning the tricuspid valve:

--- Why does the right side of the heart have a TRICUSPID valve? ---
Human Lungs

In recognizing that the left lung is smaller than the right lung (which provides room for the heart), let us conjecture that this is due to some past earlier developmental sequence just as we find the 1-layer, 2-layer, 3-layer sequential development of the 3 primordial germ layers (Ectoderm - Mesoderm - Endoderm) in primitive -to- more complex organisms. Hence, difference in size (dimorphism) as well as a two/ or three prominence may provide another link towards understanding developmental processes. Does this mean that the recurring smallness of the female to the male in many species indicates that females came before the male in terms of species-specific evolutionary development during particular environmental circumstances? If so, will there be an increased development towards a 3 to 1 "fusion" ratio?

(Predominantly 1-Patterned)

(Self)-Preservation~ (Self)-Procreation~ (Self)-Preeminence

Some additional two-patterned references found in music:

  • Tension and Release
  • Staccato and Legato
  • Slow and Fast
  • Ascending and Descending

3 monkees (14K)

Though the 1- 2- 3 brain differentiation exists, many people do not acknowledge its presence, because it is not conventional thinking. And even when it is pointed out, some will deny they see the King without clothes, adopt the same social thinking and associated language dress, or ignore it because there is no ready-made place for its application in their lives. Without a social context of intellectually being recognized, the idea that the present binary code is an example of right-brain primivity is not accepted because there is no authoritatively described social convention for acceptance. The majority will adopt a hear, see, speak no evil position of political correctness.

Subject page first Originated (saved into a folder): Thursday, November 13, 2014... 5:50 AM
Page re-Originated: Sunday, 24-Jan-2016... 08:51 AM
Initial Posting: Saturday, 13-Feb-2016... 10:59 AM
Updated Posting: Saturday, 31-March-2018... 2:21 PM

Your Questions, Comments or Additional Information are welcomed:
Herb O. Buckland