Threesology Research Journal
Artificial Intelligence and 3sology (56K)
Page 6

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        

In an attempt to acquire a trigram status, the duality of a Solid line/Broken line is coupled with the notion of Yang and Yin, which appears to be an unacknowledged mental maneuver of attempting to increase ascendency of stature in philosophical importance as is characteristic of a developing consciousness. However, if a true Trigram is to be achieved, then the use of a single line, double line, triple line configuration should be adopted:

true trigrams (4K)

This 1- 2- 3 configuration is more closely aligned to the architecture of reality in the sense that in terms of biological development we find the following structure related to three fundamental constituents:

  • RNA is predominantly single stranded.
  • DNA is predominantly double stranded.
  • Proteins can have a single- double - tertiary structure with a composite of these three (a 3 to 1 ratio) labeled a quaternary.

By using a strict reference of the single, double, triple structure, RNA could be written with one single line- one double line, and one single line. The first line would represent the predominance of RNA strand structure and the two-element second line would represent the secondary (in this case, minor) double-stranded form occurrence. The third single line would thus represent singularity form dominance. In the case of DNA, a double line would come first, followed by a single line, followed by a double line. As for proteins, a triple line would come first, a double line second, and a single line third, though some might want to arrange these in a different formulaic array such as representing predominance of occurrence in the third line (in stead of the first line) position.

While it has been recognized by others that an 8 X 8 mix and match array of the 8 basic "Trigrams" yields a quantity of 64 which is the complement of amino acids arrived at by a similar method of mixing and matching triplet codons, a view that I had independently arrived at without any fore-knowledge of such a perspective having been developed elsewhere, we must reassess this notion based on the acknowledgment that the so-called Trigrams are actually Bigrams and yield a "wannabe" (want-to-be) attempt at such a formulization. In other words, even though the correct value of "64" was achieved, it was achieved by the usage of a false set of triple codings which, if continued to be used, will fall short of extended applications in the future. This would be like a geneticist using three-patterned (mixed and matched) variations of only two amino acids.

Source for Trigram information:Trigrams page 1

If the "64" denotes the recurring boundary of a map and the "3" as signposts, than the "4" may be divisions, such as me, myself, and I; with a presumed "4th" characterization as the summation of the three being combined. For example, if we take the four directions (north, south, east, west) and put them together; we have not achieved a cancellation but a point of reference to begin with. Hence, the three same amino acids in DNA and RNA labeled Adenosine, Cytosine and, Guanine are individually and respectfully defined by the "4th" labels "Thymine" and "Uracil":

RNA DNA 3 to 1 comparison
Adenine Adenine Three the Same
Cytosine Cytosine
Guanine Guanine
Uracil Thymine One is Different

Again let us ask if such a 3 to 1 ratio is another expression of intelligent design, and thus some intelligence? If the recognition of patterns is impressed upon us by environmental influences on our genetics and physiology, is such a pattern an expression of "pure" or "artificial" intelligence; in the sense that if it is a created product after-the-fact, then it is not pure, it is artificial... the product of that which we might want to describe as being intelligent, but is in fact but another artificiality itself.

Yet, the existence of a double-banister staircase in the DNA strand is a structural component that must be included in our field of comparison, and can be a pattern expressed in the configuration of two rows of game pieces. However, if we reduce the size of the board and number of game pieces to a minimum of three, what we have is a tic-tac-toe configuration that should be expanded to include two rows and 64 spaces... in order to unravel the recurrence of the "3" pattern on a larger scale of observation:

64-squared tic-tac-toe (24K)

But if complexity is a criteria we are going to use as an indication of intelligence, is the complexity of a spider's web an indication thereof as well? Can an insect or a beaver constructing a dam be an expression of intelligence? Or is it instinct... a complement of behaviors fashioned over time by a given environment on a given life form, such as music and humans?

spiderweb (6K)

Imagine someone not thinking that a particular musical score is an artificial expression of (assumed) human intelligence. The so-called intelligence is a pattern. While patterns played out in a game of chess are viewed as being intelligent because there are multiple variations and the pieces themselves exhibit images, a game such as checkers is not often suggested as being an expression of intelligence, though someone may be thought of as being good at (playing) checkers. On the other hand, people who are good at playing chess are viewed as being intelligent, but a machine who beats the best human chess player is not said to be intelligent. Hence, playing chess is not a representation of intelligence. Likewise with the patterns found in genetics and particle physics. They are not expressions of intelligence nor intelligent design. Surely a god does not need to play the games of genetics or particle physics to illustrate their intelligence... unless such patterns are being used as a ruse like the game of chess is. Chess does not express intelligence but it does exhibit patterns found in other subject areas... the recurrence of which suggests more of an environmental-based influence of cyclicity... and repetition is often associated with intelligence, talent, giftedness or even genius.

Yet again let us make reference to the word "binomial" and highlight that its usage in computer languages involves the usage of a trinomial architecture, such as Boolean logic. However, let us not overlook the usage of 3-based geometric structures called triangles as an underlying hierarchical alignment. In other words, a step beyond the "2" is needed in order to recognize it. Like the usage of three dimensions to become cognizant of 2 dimensions. However, the "3" may be the limit because it is due to an three-based environmental influence that has "infected" our basic biological building blocks with a "3" virus that there may be no cure for except to leave the confines of this planet, this solar system and perhaps the galaxy as well. Let us take a look at three examples of triangles through which binomial formulas are seen:

3 triangles (295K)

Source: "Pascal's triangle." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.

Along with the word "binomial" let us add the word "combinatoric" that essentially means a combination thereof, but a fuller definition may be what some readers would prefer:

The field of mathematics concerned with problems of selection, arrangement, and operation within a finite or discrete system. Included is the closely related area of combinatorial geometry.

One of the basic problems of combinatorics is to determine the number of possible configurations (e.g., graphs, designs, arrays) of a given type. Even when the rules specifying the configuration are relatively simple, enumeration may sometimes present formidable difficulties. The mathematician may have to be content with finding an approximate answer or at least a good lower and upper bound.

In mathematics, generally, an entity is said to “exist” if a mathematical example satisfies the abstract properties that define the entity. In this sense it may not be apparent that even a single configuration with certain specified properties exists. This situation gives rise to problems of existence and construction. There is again an important class of theorems that guarantee the existence of certain choices under appropriate hypotheses. Besides their intrinsic interest, these theorems may be used as existence theorems in various combinatorial problems.

Finally, there are problems of optimization. As an example, a function f, the economic function, assigns the numerical value f(x) to any configuration x with certain specified properties. In this case the problem is to choose a configuration x0 that minimizes f(x) or makes it ? = minimal—that is, for any number ? > 0, f(x0) f(x) + ?, for all configurations x, with the specified properties.

Source: "Combinatorics ." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.

Like a given set of toys to be arranged in a given (set of) way(s) in a given sand box, toy box or shelf, this is the present state of AI research. The Above caption reads like AI research without attempting to create a working model in terms of a robotic entity. Indeed, even the existence of intelligence and artificiality come into question if we associate them as variables in the formulaic equation used to produce a viable entity. While those involved with the "games" inherent in their respective interests think themselves as performing intelligent activity, do we not thus describe different forms of intelligence... or is there some underlying representation applicable to all forms? If we label different forms of intelligence with letters such as A,B,C...etc., and someone says that all of them have the same "1" characteristic, how are such forms of intelligence going to be able to recognize and agree on the basic structure if the "1" if it is not part of their vocabulary and they can not easily translate that into some language equivalent for them to grasp or much less, contemplate? What if a one-to-one correspondence is not coherently visible except for the agreement to let everyone disagree?

With respect to music, classical formulas are often conveyed in the sense of being an indication of intelligence, while music accompanying popular songs is not usually given such a label. Such music might be described as great by those interested, but they typically don't use the word "intelligent" to describe either the music, song or their interest thereof. Likewise for sports, movies and television programs, or how products are laid out in a store. And while we may refer to someone as dressing "smartly", this has nothing to do with intelligence. Nor is it customary for a gardener to describe a plant as being intelligent, though they may call their dog smart when they fetch something for them. But if a person fetches something for another we might call them a type of domestic slave instead of someone who is intelligent.

With respect to artwork, does size also play into how we might measure intelligence? For example, is Mount Rushmore, the large display of four U.S. Presidents heads, more intelligent in its composition than say the Nazca geoglyph of an insect, animal or plant that may in some circumstances be many times larger?

Mount Rushmore (47K) Geoglyph spider (13K) Nazca monkey (22K)

Source for information about additional geoglyphs known as the Nazca lines: Wikipedia: Nazca Lines

If size is to be included in a definition of intelligence, then what of the complexity of a biological cell? Is the fact that we generally claim there are 3 layers of skin which correspond to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree burns involving a "complex" human is to be considered an item of intelligence but that a similar usage of "3" used in a classification model of "simple" plant cell and tissue types is an indication of biological ignorance or primivity? It is an hypocrisy of course... but an hypocrisy being used in the arena of artificial intelligence.

3 sking burn degrees (53K) Skin and muscle burn degrees (39K)
burndegrees3 (37K) If we include the muscle layer, we have a 4th degree burn zone. If we also include bone, we then have a 5th degree burn zone. And for those who claim the existence of a soul, we then have a possible 6th degree burn zone called Hell.

3 skin layers: Epidermis- Dermis- Subcutaneous tissue
3 muscle types: Striated (or skeletal)- Cardiac, Smooth (or nonstriated)
3 bone development stages : Membranes - Cartilaginous - Osseous
3 types of cartilage: Fibro - Elastic - Hyaline
3 possible bone formation sites: Intramembranous - Endochondral - Heterotopic
3 bone layers: Concentric - Circumferential - Interstial
3 bone cell types: Osteoblasts - Osteocytes - Osteoclasts

3 cells tissues (111K)

And should we alternate between using the word "intricacy" and "complexity" if our personal vocabulary is more prone to such a usage? Why should we limit a reference about "artificial intelligence" to a narrow definition as described in the above Britannica article? Maybe this is the problem in not being able to create a working model of that described because those who are actively involved with trying to create such are working from a philosophical drawing board that is little more than the expressions of babbling infants. In order for the task to be accomplished, within the limitations of the presently used definitions, the concepts of artificiality and intelligence need to be revamped. In other words, modification of our "artificial intelligence" definition needs to be reexamined from the perspective that it is a simplistic game being played out like the old Rock- Paper- Scissors paradigm being used as a type of tic-tac-toe variety. Current artificial intelligence ideas exhibit an extremely primitive philosophy.

Indeed, if complexity and large size are to be included (or excluded) from our considerations of artificiality and intelligence, how then should be thus interpret the many crop circle diagrams? Are they real or artificial constructs? Are the geometric patterns complex or simple doodlings that our simple brains interpret as complexity because of some recognized repetition in lines, circles and triangles?

Crop circles examples (44K)

Source for image: Crop circles page 1

Do we then refuse to abandon our use of the word "complexity" to describe variations or degrees of intelligence by subscribing to the idea of different kinds of intelligence as noted in the following table, though it is but a small sampling?

3 X 3 (nine) to 1 ratio of Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences... (The nine intelligences all human beings possess and their primary distinguishing characteristics are as follows:)

  1. --- Verbal/Linguistic Intelligence: --- The capacity to use language—your native language and perhaps other languages—to express what's on your mind and to understand other people.  Poets really specialize in linguistic intelligence, but any kind of writer, orator, speaker, lawyer or other person for whom language is an important stock in trade highlights linguistic intelligence.
  2. --- Logical/Mathematical Intelligence: --- the ability to understand the underlying principles of some kind of a causal system—the way a scientist or a logician does; or can manipulate numbers, quantities and operations—the way a mathematician does.

  3. --- Visual/Spatial Intelligence: --- the ability to represent the spatial world internally (in your mind)—the way a sailor or airplane pilot navigates the large spatial world; or the way a chess player or sculptor represents a more circumscribed spatial world.

  4. --- Musical/Rhythmic Intelligence: --- the capacity to think in music, to be able to hear patterns, recognize them and perhaps manipulate them.

  5. --- Bodily/Kinesthetic Intelligence: --- the capacity to use your whole body or parts of your body (your hands, your fingers, your arms) to solve a problem, make something or put on some kind of production.

  6. --- Naturalist Intelligence: --- the human ability to discriminate among living things (plants, animals) as well as sensitivity to other features of the natural world (clouds, rock configurations).

  7. --- Intrapersonal Intelligence: --- having an understanding of yourself, of knowing who you are, what you can do, what you want to do, how you react to things, which things to avoid and which things to gravitate toward.

  8. --- Interpersonal Intelligence: --- a person's capacity to understand the intentions, motivations and desires of other people and, consequently, to work effectively with others.

  9. --- Existential Intelligence: --- the proclivity to pose (and ponder) questions about life, death and ultimate realities.

  10. A (proposed) Spiritual Intelligence. When brought up under the context of spiritual feeling or a gift for religion, mysticism or the transcendent, usually generates a great deal of controversy with the science.

--- Multiple Intelligences ---
by Jane Carlson-Pickering

The concept of Multiple Intelligences is particularly useful for those who feel inadequate when compared to those who are noted for possessing a single superior mental attribute that may be labeled genius, gifted, superior, etc... The concept of multiple intelligences assists in a counseling and teaching program which promotes a "feel good about oneself" atmosphere for most, if not all students, whereas an environment that stresses the uniqueness of only one type of "mental" intelligence such as has been typically the case in many academic settings, promotes an atmosphere where many, if not most students must measure themselves against a single type of intelligence standard. Nonetheless, even though the ideas revolving around the concept of multiple intelligences is accepted by many people who are thus able to feel good about themselves when thinking that they may not possess a genius on the level of Einstein, Bach, or Leonardo, they nonetheless have their own quality of intelligence to admire, respect, and nurture on an individual bases, yet, acceptance does not guarantee that multiple "intelligences" do exist. In other words, the label "intelligences" may be wrong and misleading for an appropriate understanding of mental processes.

The idea of deriving many "intelligences" out of one brain/body/soul appears similar to a:

  1. Reversal of the Many Û One idea developed by early peoples that there were not many gods but only one. (We also find a symbolic variation of this in the motto of the 3 musketeers: All [3] for one, one [1] for All.)
  2. Modern day reference to early peoples cognitive attempts to develop "higher"- more intelligent (numerical) concepts beyond the One ~ Two ~ Many usage.
  3. Reversal of the motto "E pluribus unum" (out of many, one), which is used by the United States to refer to the Union which was formed by individual states.

    Perhaps the idea of multiple intelligences is but an example of a changing mindset that will find its way into the attitudes of the general public with respect to the structure of a "unified" government. Time will tell... (In this instance, I am referring to the development of a "many" from "one" government, that has never really existed. All governments and religions have their "many" in terms of multiple departments, offices, branches, outside/inside influencers, etc...)

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... 2:25 PM

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