Design

How to Code a Self

Description
Introduction: Taking into account the anthropic principle, not as a fact but a considerable possibility this paper is focussed on the impact on a future coding of each self in virtual reality using supercomputers. It relies on my past
Categories
Published
of 5
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
    How to Code a Self By Dr. Stefan Zechner Introduction: Taking into account the anthropic principle, not as a fact but a considerable possibility this  paper is focussed on the impact on a future coding of each self in virtual reality using supercomputers. It relies on my past conceptualization of all five blueprints of the self and its respective boundaries. Finding it impossible to introduce the concept in the first place even while being logical conclusive and simplifying the reason for the lack of understanding seems to  be hidden in the confines of each form itself. It showed me the immense stable condition of the five self-constructs in its inherent form. It appears to be the most central part of the constructions, building inaccessible walls as the basis but also a prison. Applying the anthropic  principle to my concept did not contradict but support and refine my findings asking the question,  Isn´t it highly interesting that one of the major imperatives of us, self-deception, the individual protective shield for self-understanding, hasn´t even been described yet?   1. Abstract: The first thing before coding a self, you have to understand what this means. What is the purpose of each self, no matter which of the five options you chose from? The self is the main link for interaction with others, that is its reason and the two forms of self not capable of decoding facial expressions simultaneously do emulate conscientiously. Simply attributing fixed patterns of behavior to the own person/compiler program means to chose a place among random possibilities and fix them to a certain interaction with one person. When somebody thinks of you, he will over time associate you with these features and built an autonomous representation or a conscientious selected opposite docking port. Remarkably, this topic as simple it is has not been discovered yet. For further information to my concept of mind check out my paper > The  Mathematics of the Brain < [ 1 ] , the book manuscript (only available in German so far), Prof. Pääbos paper  [ 2 ]  and some recent drafts on academia.edu [ 3 ] , [ 4 ] .  My discoveries point at a certain condition of each construct, its blind spot. It is different in each of the five self-concepts, with the option to understand 4 blind spots  but not the own one. To gain knowledge of the world/frame-structure, the need of communication appears to be programmed into our respective self thou, for it is (nearly) impossible to get a slight understanding of the related blind spot. From the perspective of coding, it seems that the frame-program and the variance of five self-constructs are needed, putting them in a hierarchical order under the rule of efficient use of energy, coding only the differences among similar constructs, not the whole personality regarding principles in data compression/nature. I have to point out here that the similarities in coding and behavioral patterns of the self(s) are astonishing and not contradictory at all, also regarding the anthropic  principle. 2. Keywords :  Neuroscience, Artificial Intelligence, Applied Mathematics, Computer Science, Brain-Computer-Interface, Cognitive-Emotional Eradication, Anthropic Principle, Behaviorism  3. Method: The basis of my work was mainly built on classical concepts of science theory and the need to gain knowledge in an independent frame of reference. Therefore I have been a scholar of science theory, have founded two institutes and not only collected data but also applied the findings to practice in my work with clients over the last ten years. I have mainly used my model of prediction of behavior to prove or falsify on a broad level, carving out a highly logical  but also difficult to understand the concept. The main reason for the latter has been identified as the five blind spots. After finding them in others with the same blueprint of self like me, it took me about two years to grasp that it could be a basic pattern in myself (my self) too. Emulating the methods of A.Turing I had to recognize that a construct was needed to crack open the secrets of the self(s). Working with groups of 5 people with a different scientific background  but the same self-construct, the breakthrough came in 2015. It was possible to create a brain- brain-interface and introduce questions like What is the self  ?,  How is it constructed  ?. It took further time to understand the answers for they were beyond the capabilities for one person at first. The most important step so far was to overcome my blind spot in abstract thought and implement a pattern of detection to realize when information got lost due to cognitive-emotional-eradication in my respective case. It is a rather painful process and it is highly recommended by the author to keep the concept strictly in abstraction, not applying it to circumstances at all at least not to the own one. 4. Results : A collection of findings for grasping the concepts and getting capable of coding a first simple self shall be provided in mathematical equations. 4.1.The Equation for cognitive-emotional Eradication: ⦗ Pc(I)/Pe(I) ⦘ d(I)/dt ≥ 0 leads to no CEE   ⦗ Pc(I)/Pe(I) ⦘ d(I)/dt ≤ 0 leads to CEE   Pc= Cognitive processing, Pc(I)= Cognitive processing of a certain information Pe= Emotional processing, Pe(I)= Emotional processing of a certain information For non-social behavior took the role of "playing" predator in the predator-prey relation they do fulfill a very important evolutionary position to improve mankind/the coding. The non-social-shift-equation shows the increase of secondary non-socials in a population quite similar to the  predator-prey equation from Lotka and Volterra with the difference that the prey is not dead but has shifted to another pattern of behavior, to the survival mode (M1). 4.2.The non-social-shift-equation   dPSoz/dt = PSoz (eSoz  –   tSoz PSoz) dPNSoz/dt = PNSoz (eNSoz  –   gNSoz PSoz)+ tPNSoz PSoz = Number of social subjects in a population PNSoz = Number of non-social subjects in a population eSoz = Entry of social subjects into work-life  eNSoz = Withdrawal from non-socials from work-life tSoz = Transforming from social to non-social per total amount of non-socials gNSoz = Entering non-socials into work-life per each social subject tPNSoz = Transforming to secondary non-social per each primary non-social This equation describes the situation in the frame-program/the world of the self when shifting to another behavioral pattern is needed not only enabling the individual to survive but protecting the respective blind spot to hide the grassroots of the connection in-between world/self or self- programming/frame-structure. 4.3.Equation for the individual triggering of non-social behavior   Therefore the parameters to decide human behavior decrease and are mainly defined by the energy for non-social behavior, the risk of getting caught and the gain to make. Using the decision making for non-socials to gain Ritalin® by the doctor and selling it, this can be brought in the following relation: P(R)  –   E(L)  –   Vmin ≧  0 P(R) = Price of Ritalin ® on the illegal market E(L) = Energy for deceiving and risk in selling by the non-social Vmin = Minimal income by this deviant activity   Thus the decision making for each non-social to cheat is highly dependent on the expected income and the risk (a working judiciary system) to take and the energy to spend by getting Ritalin prescribed. 4.4.Levels of multiplication and variance, the variance-equation: The five human groups are defined by different construction of the I/self, the interface of a  person to his reality/frame-construct. Therefore individuality is a byproduct of the hybridization process [ 2 ] an estimate to the number of possible iterations in a person, the genetical basis/self programing for variance and individuality. For non-social identities do vary a lot the total overall amount of social individuals using CEE can be assumed. Multiplcators for individuality: The differentiation in the spectrum of S, the construction of the >I< I, level of universalization U, hierarchy H, the individual amount of resources R and  group-size G is defined with 5 per level. 4.4.A.The big five spectrum (2, 8 or 80%) S = 5 4.4.B. Eight different important neurotransmitter-systems forming the individual, serotonin, endorphin, dopamine, GABA, catecholamine, etc. (for each one there are two options of decent) 4.4.C. Way of I-construction (competitive vs. non-competitive) 2 I = 10 4.4.D. Level of universalization of social behavior (couple, small group, clan, nation, universal) 4.4.E. Location on the social ladder (hierarchy H, gender 2 G, resources R, group-size Gr., culture C) O Each letter has to be seen as multiplicator: The possibility of variance V of P (personality) is: V(P)=∫ n1 E(8M)2 x 2 x 2 x S x I x U x O x H x R x G x ∫ n1 E(8M)2 ∫ x 2 x 2 x 5 x 5 x 5 x 5 x 5 x 5 x 5 = 11.250.000 ≈ n  Eleven-million-two-hundred-fifty-thousand variant personalities (all using CEE) are seemingly enough for a complete individualization and are a first approach. For non-social constructs are mainly identical and there were 2 to 3 identified so far the number is 11.225.002 (+1). The formula is for non-social scientist/mathematicians much easier to grasp for no self-deception takes place. 4.5. Equation: Projection of Resources P(R)=∫ ( M1 to M3) f(R)dR/Mct R for resources, Mct for the continuous-time of memory For the former performance of resources is drawn on a time frame a long-term validation is highly dependent on the “length of compared memory". The shorter the timeframe pending on the group of srcin the more important close related temporal developments will influence the  projection to the future, shaping the mindset of farming autists and hunting ADHD. As such shaping mindsets in-between long- and short-term planning/programing, risk-taking or risk-avoiding behavior/coding of self, quick or slow traversing resource curves have to be emulated by the brain/coding. The individual point of view thou is defined by the way our neuro-receptors/electronic-data-interchange are hardwired meaning the extent and distribution of hybridization and the more or less random amalgamation of different genomes/codes. 5. Conclusions: The astonishing elegance of the construct in its nature/coding points not only at a possible srcin in simulation regarding the anthropic principle but may show the next steps for the development of AI. According to N. Bostrom, there is only a small gap for us to do it right and avoid the consequences of the fermi paradoxon. It shows the need to stick strictly to our reality to code it virtually for all other paths that may easily lead to the self-extinction of mankind. For we are kicking down the can that road anyways the importance of this concept has not to be underestimated.    References: [ 1 ]  Zechner et al. 2019, The Mathematics of the Brain, MathSJ , 2019, ISSN 2349 6223 [ 2 ]  Pääbo et al. 2004, Genetic analyses from ancient DNA. PubMed 38:645-79 [ 3 ]  Zechner 2019, The Selftest regarding the Receptor-Balance-Theory, academia.edu [ 4 ]  Zechner 2019, Cognitive-Emotional-Eradication, academia.edu
Search
Tags
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x