I am The-TDE-guy. As well as being a highly original researcher, I am trying to become a better Wiki editor.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Charles Dyer BE(Mech) BSc(Hons) Adjunct Flinders University

[email protected]

• TDE-R - A Subjective Biocomputer by Charles Dyer (early work)

• AI-FU summary of more general solution by Charles Dyer (later work)

• Conscious-Computation.webnode.com is the most recent update

It amounts to an ‘executive summary’ of Dyer’s research since 2012. It includes the use of GOLEM and TDE models of the human brain, mind and self. Dyer has coined the term Artificial Biological Intelligence (ABI), which stands in thematic contrast to Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). The latter can be described as a ‘synthetic’ approach to the field of machine intelligence, since it is concerned with making computers (their software, specifically) function intelligently. The former stance can be similarly described as ’analytical’, since it investigates systems known to exhibit the desired behaviours. There are only two classes of systems which qualify - animal and human minds- so that is where all ABI investigative efforts must initially be directed. The key difference between ABI and vanilla neuroscience (which it closely resembles) is that, as a branch of medicine, neuroscience addresses psycho- and neuro- pathology. ABI on the other hand aims to design and build anthromimetic platforms and architectures. Whether human-like thought processes (eg subjective states of self-agency) can even exist in non-living contexts is currently an open question, one that will only be answered upon successful completion of this research goal.

My work presents several high barriers to wider acceptance within the scientific establishment.

1. the GOLEM model of mind uses ‘neolinguistic’ definitions of syntax and semantics which closely resemble but are critically different from those in the academic mainstream.
2. Another example is the modification of cybernetics (already a ‘fringe’ area of scientific interest) into ‘neocybernetics’ which augments the existing (static) concept of setpoints with the experimental (dynamic) concept of offsets. This is a crucial addition, and is the key to understanding Anatol Feldman’s work, inter alia.
3. Currently, the term ‘synaptic plasticity’ is used as a synonymic ‘short cut’ for ‘neural plasticity’, even though the scientific case for choosing that mechanism from its rival explanations has yet to be convincingly made. I believe I conclusively demonstrate the erroneous nature of the synaptic basis of neural plasticity, based on (a) latency and (b) granularity. In its place I present a model of neural adaptation that has all of its explanatory power and none of its implausible shortcomings. This model involves parametric modifications located outside rather than inside the neuron. It is based on ‘auto-latched’ semantic state neurons and their syntactic looped circuitry (SSNL). All known facts about neurotransmitters and synaptic information transmission remain identical under SSNL axioms.

WIKIPEDIA CONTRIBUTIONS

My problem with the Wikipedia system is that it suffers from the same critical weakness as science itself - what happens when one person is correct and scientific consensus is wrong? The example of Alfred Wegener, the discoverer of plate tectonics is a sobering lesson to us all. His starting point was that Africa ‘fits’ into South America like two pieces of torn paper. You can just imagine the jeers of derision from his colleagues. When he collected rock samples from each coastline, and demonstrated their clear similarity, that should have helped him but it only made the matter worse. Of course now we know about the mid Atlantic ridge, and the liquid (lava, magma = molten rock and iron) centre of the earth. The evidence for the mid-Atlantic ridge came with improvements in deep-water surveying (autonomous diving systems and remote sensing), but the evidence for a liquid centre came from theoretical analysis of earthquakes. When an earthquake’s vibrations ‘ring’ through the earth’s core from source location to the detector station, only the longitudinal P-waves are transmitted. In a liquid, transverse waves cannot be transmitters because liquids have no transverse elasticity, of course. The point I am making is the ‘mob’ is *sometimes* wrong. As I get older, I find myself tempted to replace the word ‘sometimes’ with ‘usually’. I now believe scientific advances start with maverick (=super-annoying and stubborn, not cowboy-like) individuals who stake everything on trying to change falsehood for truth. How they manage the people in their immediate ‘circle of influentials’ is crucial. Most brilliant inventors are not good at close relationships, so whether they are successful in their ‘life’s work’, ie promoting their ‘big discovery’ is often a matter of luck.

My own experience is a case in point, but is hardly unique. I believe that if someone looks for individuals like me (whether I am truly brilliant or merely stupid in a brilliant way is for others to judge), they will find lots of them, and our experiences will all be similar. So please allow me to briefly tell you about mine. When the year 2007 came, I turned 50 and with a shock realised I hadn’t achieved very much at all. So I put it in my mind that I was going to discover something really *big*. What I really wanted wasn’t fame and fortune, but a clear and compelling purpose to what was left of my life. First I chose basic physics and cosmology. It wasn’t long before I discovered something quite new - a different, wave-only derivation of the 1/3-2/3 quark charge pattern. I live in Adelaide, home of Marcus Oliphant, Ernest Rutherford’s famous assistant, and the first person to observe nuclear fusion. So I took my *discovery* to Adelaide U school of particle physics. Well, I won’t go into the details of how I was received, but it wasn’t good. Let’s say I now know a little of how Wegener must have felt!

Although I knew I was correct (I knew about de Broglie’s work) I decided to change tack. Instead of applying my *brilliance* a.k.a stubbornness to the COSMOS I decided to apply it to the COGNOS, ie mind. I also decided to apply for a research program at Flinders University. In spite of being a cinder-block (vs sandstone) institution, it does have an eminent list of old scholars. Its alumni include Rodney Brooks, arguably MIT’s most famous roboticist, and David Chalmers, equally famous for his contributions to philosophy, and the inventor of the phrase “the hard problem”. Brooks and I shared a supervisor, so my academic career seemed to start off well enough.

Well, a decade later and I am immensely proud of my achievements. I was only able to get second class honours, but my thesis topic was so utterly vague (because it represented a truly radical departure from orthodox thinking, not because I was making stuff up), I was lucky to get that. In my most recent website, [www.conscious-computation.webnode.com] I was eventually able to summarise just what it was I wanted to say about neuroscience, and the succession of wrong turns it has taken since the infamous days of Behaviourism. It took eight (8) websites full of argument before I was finally happy with what I wanted to say.

That’s when I decided to have another crack at COSMOS, using the same concept I tried to present in 2007, my wave-only theory of everything. Then the virus hit. It seems a good time to think deeply about what to do next. I’m going to use this Editing User Wiki to not only air my thoughts, but *prototype* the new stuff I intend to publish. Seems the sensible thing to do.