Andrew Scott Music

Solution found!

Regarding the quest
"to discover, develop and commercialize core principles of nature which give rise to information, consciousness and intelligence,"

have you considered that it could be consciousness that gives rise to matter, rather than the other way around?

And you said in your remarks:
"Anybody got a universe-generating mechanism?"
Yes, it already exists, has existed forever, and will persist eternally.
To quote the Dow de Jing, by Lao Tse

"Before the world in space was spun
Beneath the Heaven's feet,
There was a might spirit, one
Calm, wondrous and complete.

Timeless, yet moving, from its womb
All things came into birth.
This is the mystic bride and groom,
Maker of Heaven and Earth"

Or, in the language of modern science,
The same expression can be found in Unified Field Theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPhgDfT4Zpc
In terms of Mathematics and Physics, we have the Lagrangian:
http://www.istpp.org/military_science/Hagelin_military_lecture.html

You want something tangible? Self-regenerating?
How about a human?
As for the commercialization of this knowledge - put the human to work doing whatever you want.

Hope this helps,
Andrew Scott

11 Replies

Evolution 2.0 Prize
moderator
@Andrew Scott Music
In this debate with Stephen Meyer, I suggest that the universe is consciousness first and matter second. Not the other way around.
http://cosmicfingerprints.com/stephen-meyer-debate/
Andrew Scott Music
@Perry Marshall
OK. In that case the quest
"to discover ... core principles of nature which give rise to .. consciousness ...." seems paradoxical, because how could anything give rise to that which is primary?
Timothy Telymonde
All life is created at the galactic plain where the currently unmeasurable frequencies of the multiverse converge. Visit microneuron.com to learn about this theory. Add me to the best team, let's do this
Andrew Scott Music
@Timothy Telymonde
If all life is created at the galactic plain, then the galactic plain itself must be non-life.
Andrew Scott Music
@Timothy Telymonde
Furthermore, since the galactic plain is itself a material creation, your assertion that life originates there amounts to a claim that life originates from matter, which as we have seen from Dr. Hagelin's exposition of Unified Theory, (http://www.istpp.org/military_science/Hagelin_military_lecture.html) is back to front.
José Roberto Victor Manuel Salas
The principle to have gravity is the same to speed of light and to have live in Mars
Attachments
José Roberto Victor Manuel Salas
Ever organic live lose or win electrons If there are a cell don't do these; something wrong happens and the cells sound drum war
å🌐
å🌐
...mean*s, to an end* if anything?
Jayabalan Joseph
@å🌐

Ok... Google's 'AutoML' has given birth to a child AI algorithm the 'NASNet'...!

Very good...

NASNet is still dependent on AutoML in certain ways and is Not a fully independant system yet...? Biologists call these kinds of interspecies relationships as 'Commensalism'; where one species is dependant on the other for its survival... while the other species does not get affected in anyway in helping with it...

Ref: https://study.com/academy/lesson/symbiotic-relationships-mutualism-commensalism-amensalism.html

But unfortunately, I am not sure if 'AutoML' & 'NASNet' could be considered as being the equivalents of Biological 'species'... Yet as long as they would Not share 'Any' of their source codes (/exes); but would only interact with each other (thru qweries, data sharing etc)... then they deserve to be known as AI similars of Biological 'Species'...

Still another important criteria to be species similars is that both those AI algorithms should be able to 'boot strap' upon themselves; ie, they should have the capacity to "make changes" to their own source code (/exe) in response to major changes to external criteria, such as (changes in query inputs, data inputs etc)... The Biological equivalent would be Epigenics...

Further more the 'rand' function of these AIs should be powerful enough to introduce new alterations (mutations) to the extra copies of the source code, while not obstructing the algorithm from performing optimally. The system should be capable of trying out this experimental alteration on a pilot scale. And if this new piece of code has the fitness, then it would survive the pilot experiment; and would become part of the 'operational source code'. If it fails then it gets subjected to further rounds of modification by 'rand' or the code may even get deleted..

Remember I am a Biologist and please take my word with a pinch of salt, when it comes to matters of AI..

Regards,
J Joseph PhD
concepter
... the solution has not been found!
Let these people know about your message