The mathematics of artificial intelligence.

The eminently functional binary system
Maaaaaaaybe.
It is only "correct" if you choose the right context.

As I stated, one of these permutations must produce some kind of intelligent result, if at all possible.
Let's get to the heart of the OP and this question...
No. No. Nein and Oya, Nda, Ôda, Nde, K'amaj, C'am, Hókai, N...taj, Tsaa, Haw, Hawaa plus 500 more versions... Not true. One of these permutations is under no obligation to produce some kind of intelligent result, if at all possible.

Now that we've cleared that up... [mic drop]

Let's get to the heart of the OP and this question...
No. No. Nein and Oya, Nda, Ôda, Nde, K'amaj, C'am, Hókai, N...taj, Tsaa, Haw, Hawaa plus 500 more versions... Not true. One of these permutations is under no obligation to produce some kind of intelligent result, if at all possible.
Now that we've cleared that up... [mic drop]
Only due to the vehemence of your rejection, I feel obliged to ask the context of your logic.
First, it seems to me that all physical expressions in nature are by way of a
probability function, which does not forbid obligatory mathematical actions and reactions. The mathematics can also be expressed as obligatory electro-magnetic values and relationships.
Secondly, from what little I know of hard physics, one thing is clear; universal "constants" are a form of obligatory natural behavior, even in relativism.

Last edited:
...it seems to me...
Herein lies the problem.

The onus lies on you to make a case that "...one of these permutations must produce some kind of intelligent result..." and show your logic.
Until then, a simple 'no' (in any language) is where it stands by default.

....The mathematics can also be expressed as obligatory electro-magnetic values and relationships....

I though it was other way round...

Herein lies the problem.

The onus lies on you to make a case that "...one of these permutations must produce some kind of intelligent result..." and show your logic.
Until then, a simple 'no' (in any language) is where it stands by default.
The potential for human or any other type of intelligence existed before these potetials were probabilistically expressed in reality in the many forms of ntelligent abilities in species.
The proof Is in the pudding.!

Last edited:
I though it was other way round...
I disagree. IMO, Universal mathmtical functions exised long before man came around and assigned a symbolic language to it/
Tell me,what came first; the tree or the symbolic word *tree*?

Last edited:
Only due to the vehemence of your rejection, I feel obliged to ask the context of your logic.
I don't object to describing nature via a function, rather to the necessary, a priori imperative of artificial intelligence arising from expression of the operators. From post #2:
Would ALL combinations of these operators produce artificial intelligence? One of them must?

I don't object to describing nature via a function, rather to the necessary, a priori imperative of artificial intelligence arising from expression of the operators. From post #2:
I agree with the concept of "necessity" as an imperative, but there is an associated part to the equation. I believe the full expression is *necessity and sufficiency", which would indicate that not all available resources are required for specific functions, just a sufficient number and order, and lots of time.

I added the time element, as it is so often forgotten in the discussions. It takes some 13 yeras for a human to function as fully matured, yet we expect to build an artificial brain which has 14 years of "experience" of cause and effect at the moment of activation. Give it 13 years of "living experience" before we can expect it to make any
learned (informed) decisions.

Last edited:
The potential for human or any other type of intelligence existed before these potetials were probabilistically expressed in reality in the many forms of ntelligent abilities in species.
The proof Is in the pudding.!
That does not corroborate the claim that "...one of these permutations must produce some kind of intelligent result..."

What you're essentially saying is one of the permutations of pebbles on a beach must form the image of the Mandelbrot Set.

No, it need not.

I disagree. IMO, Universal mathmtical functions exised long before man came around and assigned a symbolic language to it/
Tell me,what came first; the tree or the symbolic word *tree*?

May be, I do not which came first.

BUT..
t, r, e, e are used to express tree......'tree' is not used to define t, r, e, e.

So maths define and formulate a physical phenomenon, it is not that a physical phenomenon describes maths.

That does not corroborate the claim that "...one of these permutations must produce some kind of intelligent result..."

What you're essentially saying is one of the permutations of pebbles on a beach must form the image of the Mandelbrot Set.
t need not.
May be, I do not which came first.

BUT..
t, r, e, e are used to express tree......'tree' is not used to define t, r, e, e.

So maths define and formulate a physical phenomenon, it is not that a physical phenomenon describes maths.
You must look at this from different persprctives.
Human mathematical symbols are descriptive of natural mathematical functions and values. For every human mathematical symbol, there was a prior unknown (unidentified) natural mathematical funnction, value, or equation. This is really a very profoundly informative clip.

Last edited:
You must look at this from different persprctives.
Human mathematical symbols are descriptive of natural mathematical functions and values. For every human mathematical symbol, there was a prior unknown (unidentified) natural mathematical funnction, value, or equation.
Well, you keep wanting that to be true, but that doesn't make it so.

Even the title of that video is silly. Math as a tool for understanding nature is not a "hidden secret".

Well ... unless his audience is entirely comprised of preschoolers...

Well, you keep wanting that to be true, but that doesn't make it so.
Even the title of that video is silly. Math as a tool for understanding nature is not a "hidden secret".
Well ... unless his audience is entirely comprised of preschoolers...
If the shoe fits...........
We could begin by teaching the meaning of cosmic imperatives. Unlike the :invention: of spritual gods, mathematical functions have been observed and imitated since the beginning of matter, these functions were not invented by man, but observed aspects of space-time itself. and "symbolized" by man as recorded and consensus science.

IMO, an assumption of a conditionally permittive mathematical medium with potential for expression from the very subtle to gross expression in our reality has to be a universal imperative. Only a hierarchy of mathematical orders can produce the ordering functions which we can actually observe in reality , not some later College library.

Turns out that these cosmic imperatives follow specific patterns, which are in essence mathematically consistent in their functions. We know them as "universal constants". That is the only reason why our mahematics work at all levels except apparently at quantum scale, where expression in reality is a probabilistic event, but at the elemental level the mathematical structures and properties are readily observable, as are the mathematical functions of electro-magnetic wave functions.
Man does not control the mathematics of universal mathematical imperatives and functions.
We can only be witness to it all and stand in awe..

Last edited:
After thought.
If we could build an AI with the capacity for a form of awe and discovery would go a long way to a self-sentient "species".

Last edited:
After thought.
If we could build an AI with the capacity for a form of awe and discovery would go a long way to "species".

Hmm... how does metal and a program become a " species " ?

Hmm... how does metal and a program become a " species " ?
What are you using as a baseline for a species?

What are you using as a baseline for a species?

Life that can breed with like life forms .

You ?

Life that can breed with like life forms .

You ?
River makes a good point.

You jumped from AI to sentience to life to breeding-species in one sentence.

Bit of a non sequitur there in the middle.

If we could build an AI with the capacity for a form of awe and discovery would go a long way to a self-sentient "species".
If we could build an AI with a form of awe, we would already have a sentient entity.