Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Crystal Computers: The A.I. Of Nanobots, Neurons, and Plants

Nanobots and neurons are the same thing, or at least no doctor can yet make any significant distinction between the two. Then again, doctors usually study inside-out of the body and not the other-way around. Agricultural Biotechnologists study the world outside the body and how that relates to the inside-inside of the body, with either computer science or biochemical paths. Yes, the inside-insides, which are often the same as plants until fully assimilated by the human body. That's more true if those studies are about non-carnivores, as we know the brains of carnivores vary from one to another. Some are more like silicon, like the holographic wafers of integrated circuits, and others are quite different.

“Be As Wise As Ye Serpents”

When I asked of doctors and students if the church meant to compare serpents to nanobots and/or neurons, they could not recall anything that challenged such comparison as false. First note the debate between snakes and serpents of the bible, and note that they are not the same. The one thing that is the same about the two is said scales, or the more metaphorical truth of the justice scales. One can ask the question, “do we compare this on the scale of serpents or on the scale of apples and oranges?” It makes sense. Of course, the comparison of neurons and nanobots seems hideous, yet when given questions of how chemicals react with neurons and what we know of how chemicals react with nanobots, and how both “could” cause psycho-active affects, hallucinations, or other trauma, the best answer was “nanobots are prosthetics.”

Later, I asked another group about the possibility if they can see their own brain without any mirror, external camera, or such. I hypothesized to them that it is not possible under the ideal situation that “the observed can not see the observer”, as that hypotheses takes the step beyond Schrodinger's cat. The hypotheses stumped the group, as the best answers were some form of mutilation, which the rest of the group doubted would work anyway. Professor Kant's “undeniable truth” statement, however, rebuts my hypotheses as not science since it is not provable any other way; hence, nobody could challenge it. It stays ideal under the pretense no human has directly seen their own brain with their own eyes.

What those last two paragraphs mean to the Agricultural Biotechnologist is that they will never agree with Neurologist in how the brain works, as it is clear that Neurologists relied much on third person and second person evidence rather than first person evidence. That is not all conclusive, yet the statement brings closure from the source of facts: “you are what you eat.” What we do agree upon is the functional neural-networks; we have developed programs that simulate the weights and measure of brain activity, processes, and coherence, yet the Agricultural Biotechnologist insists the real source of thought is beyond the capacity of finite cranial-space; the Neurologists insists it all can be mapped within that finite space and stresses that the brain and mind is the same.

Agricultural Biotechnologists match wits with Biochemists (and physicists) within the context of Quantum Mechanics. The strong Computer Scientists views Quantum Physics as the negation of mechanical explanation, especially in the realm of quantum computers where Biochemists equally develop such nanotechnology. What happens at this level is that the normal mode of explanation of three-dimensional finite space no longer works at the quantum level, so we go beyond, typically into 12-dimensional space. We use metaphorical names for dimensions beyond the first three, which we consider the “ordinary world,” and the rest “the beast.” Metaphorical names, in the context of quantum mechanics, apply like algorithms and variables in mathematics, so there is nothing obscure, imaginary, or otherwise not true about use of such names in description of how such quantums “act.” When you see plant growth that follows the celestial lights, you know we have found common ground for names of those energy sources (or forces). We found ways that explain such phenomena in down-to-Earth meanings (where extinction of them is zealous).

The Agricultural Biotechnologists knows that when you eat Plant-X that follows Celestial-Y-quantum-force then, you have Celestial-Y-quantum-force in your body. Doctors agree upon that much even if they hate metaphorical names for further comprehension, yet that's the barrier doctors created, so the name “the beast” is appropriate for comprehension of dimensions beyond normal three-dimensional science. We nailed that comprehension with the name Christ, derived from Greek word “christos,” which means “anointed,” especially with oil; we know how oil turns into crystal, so we reduced that down to some “hard” substance as in “this is hard to comprehend beyond this point” unless your unbiased towards pagan beliefs and other systems “before Christ” (BC). We can either reinvent the wheel with strange-name-X-from-celestial-Y-at-level-Z, or we can use what has already been provided to us.

[Note the above applies likewise in other bibles when the comprehension is apropos “rock” solid. It's your choice how you “bilingual” that or “trifecta” that sense from there.]

I think that decision of reinvention, or not, rests upon the comparison of “intelligence” to “artificial intelligence.” Of course, people expressed that artificial intelligence is something that we use our own intelligence “to make,” yet that is not possible in strict monotheistic beliefs of the single creator, so we either can say it already exists or it doesn't exist. One question I ask is about the source of that intelligence rather than if the medium is artificial. Is the source artificial or has deterministic qualities? We know within finite space, everything has some deterministic quality (by law of conservation), so either everything in our ordinary world is artificial or the source is something beyond. The truth to that “beyond” is that we know there is something that allows interaction between people's finite space of their body and their dreams, yet the simple details and explanation of those facts “conflict with law” such that those truths are kept unsaid, which pretty much defines “intelligence.”

“If you didn't see it with your own eyes, then...”
– parable on testimony

When “intelligence” becomes judgmental, then the decision is not “reinvention or not,” yet it is legalization or secret-ization, and note that secrets do not evolve. Do zealots believe in artificial evolution? There are many reasons, I have, that weigh-in why the Book of Judges does not belong in the bible, and if Judges act any bit zealous then we know where that tear-out starts, like extinction. In rebuttal, let's consider the zealous attitude to someone that considers something illegal before anybody legalized it. I'm sure there is some intelligent reason why that book still exists through our evolution.

When we eat, do we evolve our brain with the extracted oils from the plants? Yes. Have we proven in science class that we can melt crystals and let them cool such that they reform their crystalline patterns. Yes. Does that mean we have given our brain artificial intelligence from plants either if you let your body extract the oils internally or if you do it more externally? The Agricultural Biotechnologist can limit your answer to that such that it cancels out any experience in hallucinations with that intelligence, but the Neurologist let's you continue ill-beliefs in any such hallucinations; because the Neurologist is not the nanotechnologist.

I do not believe in hallucinations. I know that the crystals in such fractal-mathematic explanation of them outweighs the Neurologists more limited view on the finite cranial-space. In fact, such possible computations, fractals included, moves the discussion of the mind outside the realm of the brain such that the brain is something that occurs after the fact of the mind. Within the context of stem-cells, we find secondary proof of that where skin-cells migrated to the cranial-space where they formed brain tissue. That's no hallucination (because it computes)!

Within those cells is where we consider the inside-insides. The comprehension level is where you can fold DNA space within your own mind such that carbon structures makes more sense as six-dimensional nanotubes rather than just bonds of the three-dimensional double helix. We could further compare that discussion of intelligence in crystal computers near the point where we know blood cells are generated, yet... the ordinary world comparison (and simulation) of them is more beautiful, unique, and results in less headaches.

P.S. “AI” is love in Chinese.