Hello,

More of my philosophy about human consciousness and more...

I am a white arab from Morocco, and i think i am smart since i have also
invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..

I think i am smart, and i have just talked about time and space, read it below, and now i will talk about human consciousness, so i invite you
to look at the following video of Giulio Tononi:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK72pPa_gSE
Giulio Tononi is a neuroscientist and psychiatrist, you can
read about him here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giulio_Tononi

So, i don't agree with Giulio Tononi about what is human consciousness,
since here is my explanation of what is human consciousness:

More of my philosophy about the limit of the connectionist models in
artificial intelligence and more..

I think i am smart and i will say that the connectionist model like
of deep learning has not the same nature as of the human brain, since
i can say that the brain is not just connections of neurons like
in deep learning, but it is also a "sense" like the sense of touch,
and i think that this sense of the brain is biologic,
and i think that this kind of nature of the brain of being
also a sense is also giving the emergence of consciousness and self-awareness and a higher level of common sense reasoning, this
is why i think that the connectionist model in artifical intelligence is
showing its limits by not being able to make emerge common sense
reasoning, but as i said below that the hybrid connectionist + symbolic
model can perhaps make emerge a kind of common sense reasoning.

And here is what i said about human self-awareness and awareness:

So i will start by asking a philosophical question of:

Is human self-awareness and awareness an emergence and what is it ?

So i will explain my findings:

I think i have found the first smart pattern with my fluid intelligence
and i found also the rest and it is the following:

Notice that when you touch a cold water you will know about the essence
or nature of the cold water and you will also know that it is related
to senses of humans, so i think that the senses of a human give life
to ideas, it is like a "reification" of an idea, i mean that an idea
is alive since it is like reified with the senses of humans that senses
time and space and matter, so this reification gives the correct meaning
since you are like reifying with the human senses that gives the
meaning, and i say that this capacity of this kind of reification with
the human senses is an emergence that comes from the human biology, so i
am smart and i will say that the brain is a kind of calculator that
calculates by using composability with the meanings that come also from
this kind of reification with the human senses, and i think that
self-awareness comes from the human senses that senses our ideas of our
thinking, and it is what gives consciousness and self-awareness, so now
you are understanding that what is missing in artificial intelligence is
this kind of reification with the human senses that render the brain
much more optimal than artificial intelligence, and i will explain more
the why of it in my next posts.

More of my philosophy about the future of artificial intelligence and more...

I will ask a philosophical question of:

Can we forecast the future of artificial intelligence ?

I think i am smart, and i am quickly noticing that connectionism in
artificial intelligence like with deep learning is not working because
it is not able to make emerge common sense reasoning, so i invite you to
read the following article from ScienceDaily so that to notice it, since
it is speaking about the connectionist models(like the ones of deep
learning or the transformers that are a kind of deep learning) in
artificial intelligence:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/11/201118141702.htm

And read my philosophy in the following link:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/ag_ziCVV0VA

And read my following proverbs that i think are flexible from the start and that i have just invented quickly, here they are and read them carefully:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/ZyUvFt_nix8

And read my following poems of Love that i think are flexible from the start, here they are and read them carefully:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/qte9bCZiOiw

More of my philosophy about the space and time and is it a graph or network...

I think i am smart and i will invite you to read the following
from a jewish scientist called Stephen Wolfram:

What Is Spacetime, Really?

https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2015/12/what-is-spacetime-really/

So notice that in his model he is saying that space is a network or a graph from where we can construct the rest of the universe, but
you have to notice that there is still a problem and it is the following in arabic and english:

"Hal min la' wujud ya'tina' al wujud" , and its translation in english is: "Can from the nonexistent or the not existent comes the existent ?"

So as you are noticing that Stephen Wolfram above is saying
that this network or graph that we call space of our universe or multiverses has always existed,and this doesn't logically contradict my saying that there is some things such as the wide space of the universe or multiverses or such a thing as God that can not be explained with the law of causation , since they have "always" existed.

More of my philosophy about the problem of time and space..

I think i am smart and i will explain more clearly so that you understand, so i invite you to read the following article
so that to understand the problem:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/12/07/65014/how-does-time-dilation-affect-aging-during-high-speed-space-travel/

So notice how it is saying the following:

"Time dilation goes back to Einstein’s theory of special relativity, which teaches us that motion through space actually creates alterations in the flow of time. The faster you move through the three dimensions that define physical space, the more slowly you’re moving through the fourth dimension, time––at least relative to another object. Time is measured differently for the twin who moved through space and the twin who stayed on Earth. The clock in motion will tick more slowly than the clocks we’re watching on Earth."

So i think that it is not saying it correctly, since when you say:

"The clock in motion will tick more slowly than the clocks we’re watching on Earth."

It is the problem since the theory must be logical in practice,
so we are not knowing how to explain it practically, so i think i will
explain it more:

I think that time has a characteristics that you can not understand easily practically and logically, since i can give you an example so that you understand:

So i think that there is something really important to notice,
since i think that for example the wide "space" of our universe or the
multiverse has always existed, so we can then say that there is no cause
that has created the wide "space" of our universe or multiverse, so then
we can then say that we can not give a meaning by the law of causation
in such case, since the law of "causation" doesn't apply to some things
such as the wide space of the universe, so then we can logically infer
that there is some things such as God or the wide space of the universe
that have no cause that has created them, so then we can logically infer
that we humans have the tendency to think things by using the law of
causation, but i think it is a big logical mistake, because there is
things such as the wide space of the universe that have no cause, so
time has the same problem i think, since you have the tendency to
want to explain time with the law of causation, but i think it is
a mistake.

Read my previous thoughts:

More of my philosophy about the multiple worlds and multiple universes and about time..

I think i am smart and i have just read the following article and i invite you to read it here:

What Is Time?

https://www.sciencealert.com/time

And notice that the article says the following about time:

--
"Two people moving at the same velocity will each agree their measures of distance and time match. As one person changes speed, however, they will see the other's measure of time and distance change, even as their own stays the same.

Without any reason to prioritize one perspective of time over another, this means time isn't a constant universal unit at all. It is a relative measurement that varies as objects move faster or slower, or as they're subjected to more or less gravity.

Gravity curves space and time: The stronger the gravity, the more it curves space-time, and the more time slows down."
--

So i think that what i am saying below about time is greatly probable,
since i think that there remains one important thing that i will say and it is that from my below thoughts of my philosophy about time, we can
say that there is like multiple worlds or universes that emerge when
Gravity curves space and time or the moving faster makes time becomes relative, so i think it is related to the subatomic layer, since when
Gravity curves space and time or the moving faster makes time relative, it is the subatomic layer that is changed and it composes again another
new world or universe that emerges that makes the time relative, and it is like the emergence of intelligence of an Ant colony, so read my previous thoughts so that to understand:

Olcott says in Cambridge Univ the Halting problem is halting the boiling of lobster and crabs, while alive, boiling them to death is very very bad. And now Amine in Morocco is pleading for human consciousness to not boil live creatures....

On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 6:28:19 PM UTC-6, Amine Moulay Ramdane wrote:
> I am a white arab from Morocco,

Olcott can David Sainsbury, John Coates, Timothy Gowers, Peter Johnstone, Imre Leader ever do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, or is that totally foreign to them? Mind you, not a limit analysis hornswaggle for that is not geometry, limit analysis is not even a math proof for anyone can analysis things, analysis this post and only math hypocrites would think it is a proof.

Olcott can Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, ever ask the question, which is the atom's real electron, the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. Or does that thought fly way too above their heads?


Olcott, why cannot Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine ask the question which is the atom's real electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle? Is it because they cannot even do logic correctly with their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction?
>
> Olcott why does Cambridge Univ Stephen J. Toope, David Sainsbury, Peter Johnstone, Imre Leader, Gabriel Paternain keep teaching Boole error filled logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, and never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and these crazies still think the slant cut in cone is a ellipse when in fact it is a Oval. Why brainwash and pollute more students like Pete Olcott who is crazy enough as it is.
>
> Olcott why is noone in Cambridge physics able to ask the question which is the atom's true real electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle? Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith?? Do they not have a brain to ask a simple question????
>
> 3rd published book
>
> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
>
> Length: 21 pages
>
> File Size: 1620 KB
> Print Length: 21 pages
> Publication Date: March 11, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> X-Ray: Not Enabled
> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
>
>
> #8-2, 11th published book
>
> World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> Preface:
> Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
>
> Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis".. To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
>
> Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
>
> Length: 137 pages
>
> Product details
> ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
> Publication date : March 14, 2019
> Language : English
> File size : 1307 KB
> Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> Screen Reader : Supported
> Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> X-Ray : Not Enabled
> Word Wise : Not Enabled
> Print length : 137 pages
> Lending : Enabled
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> #134 in Calculus (Books)
> #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
>
> 5th published book
>
> Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
> Preface:
> First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
>
> The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
>
> My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
>
> Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
>
>
> Length: 72 pages
>
> File Size: 773 KB
> Print Length: 72 pages
> Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Screen Reader: Supported
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
> 

>
>
> #6-2, 27th published book
>
> Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
>
> Last revision was 9NOV2020. This is AP's 27th published book.
>
> Preface:
> These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic
>
> Equal+Not
> T = T = T
> T = ~F = T
> F = ~T = T
> F = F = T
>
> If--> then
> T --> T = T
> T --> F = F
> F --> T = U (unknown or uncertain)
> F --> F = U (unknown or uncertain)
>
> And
> T & T = T
> T & F = T
> F & T = T
> F & F = F
>
>
> Or
> T or T = F
> T or F = T
> F or T = T
> F or F = F
>
> Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication. If-->then is division. And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability unknown, undefined end conclusion.
>
> Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:
>
> | | ~p
> | |---
> | | .
> | | .
> | | q
> | | .
> | | .
> | | ~q
> | p
>
> Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.
> Length: 86 pages
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B07Q18GQ7S
> • Publication date : March 23, 2019
> • Language : English
> • File size : 1178 KB
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> • Print length : 86 pages
> • Lending : Enabled
> • Best Sellers Rank: #346,875 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #28 in Logic (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #95 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> ◦ #217 in Mathematical Logic
> •
>
>
> True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of 0.5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.
>
> Cover picture: shows 3 isomers of CO2 and the O2 molecule.
>
> Length: 1150 pages
>
>
> Product details
> • File Size : 2167 KB
> • ASIN : B07PLVMMSZ
> • Publication Date : March 11, 2019
> • Word Wise : Enabled
> • Print Length : 1150 pages
> • Language: : English
> • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Lending : Enabled
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #181 in General Chemistry & Reference
> #1324 in General Chemistry
> #1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)
>
>
> Cambridge professors insane about Logic turns students like Pete Olcott insane also.
>
> Cambridge Physics Dept
>
> Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison, Ansorge, Atature, Barker, Barnes, Bartlett, Batley, Baumberg, Bohndiek, Bowman, Brown, Buscher, Butler, Campbell Carilli, Carter, Castelnovo, Challis, Chalut, Chaudhri, Chin, Ciccarelli, Cicuta, Cole, Cooper, Cowburn, Credgington, Cross, Croze, Deschler, Donald, Duffett-Smith, Dutton, Eiser, Ellis, Euser, Field, Flynn, Ford, Friend, Gibson, Green, Greenham, Gripaios, Grosche, Guck, Gull, Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine, Jenkins, Jones, Josephson, Keyser, Khmeinitskii, King, Kotlyar, Lamacraft, Lasenby, Lester, Longair, Lonzarich, Maiolino, Marshall, Martin, Mitov, Morris, Mortimer, Moller, Needs, Norman, Nunnenkamp, Padman,Parker, Patel, Payne, Pepper, Phillips, Pramauro, Queloz, Rao, Richer, Riley, Ritchie, Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith, Sutherland, Taylor, Teichmann, Terentjev, Thomson, Verrechia, Walker, Ward, Warner, Weale, Webber, Whyles, Withington.
>
> Cambridge Math Dept
>
> Alan Baker
> Bela Bollobas
> Darwin Smith
> John Coates
> Timothy Gowers
> Peter Johnstone
> Imre Leader
> Gabriel Paternain
>
> Can any-one at Cambridge start correcting the error filled Boole, Jevons, Russell, Whitehead, Godel, Wittgenstein, all failures of logic and logical reasoning, include Cantor and his tripe of undefined infinity, an infinity without a borderline between finite and infinite.
>
> Cambridge, you no longer are a premiere University but a school that fosters and shelters losers of logical reasoning.
>