Brain, Computers and Mind: Speech and Thought in Humans, Animals and Machines. The false statement of the Semantic Web & Artificial Intelligence (AI).
Francisco Antonio Cerón García
Physic’s Spanish Royal Society
Index
1. – Introduction 2
2.- Current status of Computer Science. 3
3.- The Limits (Constraints) of the Tools in Science, Formal Logic and Experimentation. 5
4.- The basic Mechanisms of Language and Thought. 8
5.- Structuralism, Continental Philosophy & Analytic Philosophy. 9
6.- Knowledge and Transmission of Knowledge. 10
7.- Nature and Representation of Knowledge. 13
8.- Why not trying to teach how to talk and / or think to a Machine? Limitations and failures of the approach of the Description Logic. 15
10.- The Thought is not the same as Language: What is Intelligence? What is Thought? 19
11.- Difference between Animals and Humans, and Brain and Mind. 19
12.- Conclusion: Inability of Language and human Thought in the Machine , and the false statement of the Semantic Web & Artificial Intelligence. 20
13.- Theorem: “The limit of The Artificial Intelligence”. 22
14.- Theorem: From Logic to Ontology: The limit of “The Semantic Web”. 24
15.- Bibliography 25
1 .- Introduction
In the reading of “Minds, Machines and Gödel” by
J.R. Lucas and other authors such as Roger Penrose, they suggest that is impossible to think and/or talk for machines or computers.
Metonymy, the first Mechanism of human Thought and Language, have been built-in Machines or computers, and it is the substrate of Symbolic Logic and/or Formal (and therefore also of Mathematics), but we have lack of the Metaphor, which lets human beings to “Conclude” in the strict Sense of the term in Psychoanalysis: Metaphor brings us to Reality and Time.
And this is my challenge: Find a Logic Consistent, that besides the Metonymy in a Consistent Mathematical Logic, and it has also the Metaphor incorporated.
2 .- Current status of Computer Science
The attempt to build the Semantic Web from the Description Logic, which is in turn based on Symbolic Logic and Mathematical Logic, is Contradictory and Inconsistent, because although Symbolic Logic or Mathematical Logic is Consistent, by definition it has unique or Unambiguous sense (unique Meaning), which is totally Contradictory to the Semantics of the Language (natural), which is meaningless or Ambiguous (several Meanings).
If what you seek is, for example, as an application of the Semantic Web, do a search on Google, and to get instead of the several Ambiguous million results, only a few and accurate results, we have to start from other Tools more appropriate to the Natural Language, who is of Meaningful Ambiguous, and therefore we must build new tools in place of the existing ones that take into account this difference.
We should ask help to the Sciences that study the Language, and especially we should focus on the Sciences that study the Human Mind and Thought, we can find the tools that we seek, and if it’s possible, add them on Mathematics, and if it’s necessary, to invent a new approach to Formal Logic, Symbolic Logic and/or current math, that gives rise to a new and different logic than the current Description Logic (Knowledge Representation), which is a complete failure to built a Semantic Web on Internet.
All this makes Sense if we analyze the Framework within Human Knowledge has been developed, including the prehistoric times. A fundamental features of it, and also in a very simplified form, the only thing that truly differentiates us from Animals is that we are “speaking beings“, that is, we make use of Language, and it is very important because we use Language as a medium of Communication, which has served for the Transmission of Knowledge throughout the entire history of mankind.
The only thing that really changed the way of purely oral Transmission (speech), has been the invention of Writing, which allowed the survival and subsequent accumulation of Knowledge, from the papyrus paper and the tables of clay through the books manuscripts and reaching the invention of Printing by Gutenberg. With this last discovery and cheaper cost of Transmitting Knowledge, and subsequently with the invention of the Internet (and Computers), it has decreased the cost of Knowledge Transmission to almost zero (at least in developed countries), and Knowledge for the first time in Human history, is now available to almost all the entire world and not for only a privileged few Humans beings as in the Middle Ages.
But now if we could also built a Semantic Web on Internet, savings would not only be an economic question and monetary issues, the economy would be further savings of Time of Thinking, or what is the same, spending less Time to seek and find Knowledge.
Moreover, besides the history and the fundamental characteristics in the Transmission of Knowledge and his achievement, who is Human Civilization, we must define the Framework within it has been developed throughout the history of Mankind, and it is not a trivial and unimportant issue, but this question is the most important. Today there is Science-specific of Ktnowledge as the study of Epistemology and others … But we still need more tools in other areas, such as Psychoanalysis, Linguistics, etc.
3 .- The Limits of the Tools in Science, Formal Logic and Experimentation.
First I want to say that “Cognitive Neuroscience“, where everything related to Humans beings has a direct explanation from “Neuroscience” and/or “Biology” and/or “Genetics“, is very Incomplete and Partial. The fundamental working hypothesis of all modern Science is that Mind and Brain are the same or equivalent, this is given due to the exclusivity and dominance in the Science of Statistical and Stochastic methods, Quantitative Research and Formal Logic, ignoring and excluding Qualitative Research methods. Although they are rigorous, they are Incomplete and/or Contradictory too, as we could realize from many results and paradoxes in Mathematics (Gödel’s theorems), and in other areas of Science. But Human beings with Language goes far beyond this “scientific” Reductionism (see the Science as an exclusively Formal System of Thought as well defined by orthodox and traditional way), Human beings goes far beyond any Biological Nature, as evidenced Psychoanalysis, particularly Freud and Lacan.
Freud and Lacan have discovered that there exists a unique and singular Person in every Human being who is unattainable, for instance, his /her Unconscious, and his/her Unconscious is not generalizable, in the sense of reductionists Sciences, like Genetics, Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics, and Physics. It is still more widely from the viewpoint of Formal Logic, because this system of Thought is by definition closed and Complete by itself, but it is only a Metonymic approaching of Reality, devoid of Metaphor of Human Language and Thought. It is a very poor approximation to Reality, despite the Technological benefits that our Civilization has achieved from it, and it led us to its own Limitations (Constraints) in the Knowledge of Reality, which is clearly visible in many Paradoxes: Mathematics (Gödel Incompleteness Theorems), Computer Science (Turing machine and Halting Problem), and even Physical Science (The Theory of Relativity is incompatible with the physical and mathematical theory of Quantum Mechanics – our two fundamental theories of Science and Technology closer to Reality).
In humanity history, the Sciences, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and other Sciences such as Biology, Genetics, Neuroscience, Medicine, etc.., and all its applications across the Technology past and present, all of them are based on a Formal Logic of Thinking, and precisely from Gödel, we found numerous examples of Paradoxes … All this shows that we are at the Limits of the Knowledge. We can provide Formal Logic, which by definition is limited only to the Unambiguous Metonymy, and it has enabled the construction of the current Technological Civilization, but we are in a Logical Framework with Constrains of Formal Logic, and as I said it is the Tool of Scientific Thought and Technology by its definition, and throughout its history since the days of Greek civilization.
Then if Formal Logic, which is the foundation of all Thought of all the Science and Technology, can be “Contradictory” and “Limited” or “Incomplete” (Gödel), you have to go a step further and open the horizon using tools more complete and less biased, we can take advantage of what Psychoanalysis has discovered about Human beings and its constitution of psychic structure in Three Orders: The Symbolic Order, The Imaginary Order (and last The Real) and the combination of both enables us to appreciate “something” of Reality, but in a Partial and fragmented way, there is no Consistency and reciprocity between what our Mind is capable of reaching to grasp or understand of Reality, with what is truly real (Real World).
And for this failure, and because we have not realized that the Discourse of Science and Technology is Alienating, we begin to find the Science riddled with Paradoxes and Contradictions, and to make matters worse, as Metaphor is excluded of the Scientific discourse it becomes more Metonymic and Closed, the more away from Reality, and a living example for all people and very close to them, is the economic current world “crisis”, where the whole economic system has devoured itself, nor do the whole Humanity with the Alienation of a nuclear war (we were not far away from that), nor do we devour ourselves. All of this is going on without any Constraint to Science and Technology to get the “Future” and “Progress“, if we are not aware of their Limits and Constraints, and we are not responsible for them, Reality is always present to remind it not so very nice to us. I do not propose a return to Nature, which is “Mythical“, but we should take care of our responsibility and take the Limits of Scientific Thought and Technology, but as I am a scientist I attempt to go one step further there, and bearing in mind these limitations and my own limitations to know the Reality, I am trying to find new ways of Thinking applicable to Science, Technology and Computers.
The worst mistake of the Science is believing that Science is the unique fundamental truth and is above all, but Reality is so complex and so complicated that requires at least a large amount of humility, this is why the Science is so unable to go beyond their own Rhetoric and its own Logical Limits, and Science should realize that Mind and Brain are not equivalent and/or equal, this is the big mistake of the majority of current scientific people (Scientism). But at least if you do not want to accept it as a True and proven, we could always use it as Axiomatic Principle, like thousands of Knowledge in all areas of Science that are not Demonstrable but are taken for Certain, and if my axiom that Mind and Brain are not the same, and it works correctly and leads to Consistent Results with the Real World, then we would think that it is True.
4 .- The basic Mechanisms of Language and Thought.
In addition to what said above, Psychoanalysis also teaches us that there are two basic mechanisms in the Language (Saussure) and the Human Thought, which are displacement or Metonymy, and condensation or Metaphor (Freud), or linguistically called Metonymy and Metaphor.
Metonymy is the fundamental mechanism of Scientific Thought (and math), and it reflects the Formal Logic and/or symbolic, where the Meaning of Ambiguous Language has been dissected in a precise and Unambiguous Meaning to get Rigor and Consistency, therefore exclude the Contradiction, but at the cost of removing the other mechanism of Thought, which is the condensation or Metaphor, paradoxically coming to Contradictory (see Paradoxes …) or Incomplete results. The Formal Logical system has operated up and allows us to develop our Technological Civilization, but as I said, we are finding its Logical Limits.
Now we can take a step further and beyond, incorporating the Metaphor of our Logical System of Thought in Science and Technology, where the incorporation of the Metaphor, could mean the loss of the principle of generality, but although it would still be incomplete, you have a closer and more accurate representation of reality than with the Traditional System. This is what I intend to do and try to build from now on…
And if you define logic of Metonymy that has also incorporated the Metaphor, then I will have incorporated the two basic Mechanisms of Human Thought and Language. It will still be a partial and limited Knowledge, but as I have said before, with a better perception of Reality that the mere Metonymy of Symbolic Logic.
The Metaphor/ condensation is what allows us to Conclude, and it introduces us to Reality and Time, whereas in symbolic or Mathematical Logic, Reality comes only through the Cardinality of Numbers.
5 .- Structuralism, Continental Philosophy & Analytic Philosophy.
The experimental and theoretical framework in which I research is therefore the “Structuralism“, movement, who is included in Continental Philosophy and opposite to Analytic Philosophy, starting from Saussure to the study of language, according to Jakobson and Levi Strauss, and ending with Freud and Lacan and the discovery of the Unconscious, the Psychoanalysis and the creation of man as a singular person.
I do not propose to make a perfect demonstration, complete and rigorous in the classical and orthodox sense of science, if we take the concept of formal logic and the thinking of orthodox science and technology, this does not mean giving up the coherence or internal consistency, but my system is not complete by definition, and therefore not closed, I only require for it, if I can do that, the non-contradiction principle, and it is from the experimental and theoretical framework that I have defined, to look for, identify, and/or invent if it is necessary, the tools that allow me to analyze and examine the knowledge not only of a metonymic form of formal logic and/or symbolic, as has happened so far in Computing and Internet, but also I can built a semantic Web, with the addition of a tool that represents the metaphor, and the principle of condensation of language and human thought, which is what brings us closer to reality through the passage of time and the conclusion.
This logical system as I have explained on our perception of reality, by definition will not be complete, and would be consistent, but it will be a useful tool to manage knowledge online. I do not intend that computers could speak, because my theorem “The limit of The Semantic Web“, says that this is impossible, but all that you can research in that way would be a breakthrough for the handling and transmission of knowledge via the Internet.
This logical system means that it is not closed, so it is open, although it seems impossible to build something “scientific” in this way, but all science and technology and their findings are largely embedded in this framework, because although we tried to formalize science and technology with formal logic, the relationship of science and technology with the reality goes through our mind and its mechanisms sometimes inconsistent, but directly related to the real thing, where nobody is, from there is that I intend to seek and find this new order of thought, where everything is not completely closed and completed, but if you were there, everything is connected to reality through the language computer and the Internet.
This is my project, and it is perhaps nonsensical great and impossible, but as Lacan said “the impossible is the only reality”, and so I am researching on it!
6.- Knowledge and Transmission of Knowledge.
Knowledge is, first, the state which knows or knows something, and secondly, the content known or known as part of the cultural heritage of mankind. By extension, also often called “knowledge” of everything an individual or a society deemed given or known acquaintance.
There is no doubt, science is one of the main types of knowledge. The sciences are the result of efforts and research methods in search for answers to specific problems, and the elucidation of which seeks to provide an adequate representation of the world. There are, however, many types of knowledge, not being scientists, they are perfectly suited to its purpose: the know-how in the crafts, learn to swim, etc.. And knowing the language, the traditions, legends, customs and ideas of a particular culture, the knowledge that individuals have their own history (they know their name, they know their parents and their past), or even the common knowledge to a given society, including the humanity (to know what is a hammer, knowing that water extinguishes fire).
Even when information is generated each time, however, the amount of human knowledge is necessarily finite, as well as the difficulty of solving such problems as the origin of life and the universe, death, among many others.
The knowledge acquired through a variety of cognitive processes: perception, memory, experience (attempts followed by success or failure), reasoning, learning and teaching, testimony of third parties … Controlled observation, experimentation, modelling, criticism of sources (in history), surveys, and other procedures that are specifically employed by the sciences, can be viewed as a refinement or an implementation of the above. These are the subject of study of epistemology.
The importance attached to knowledge distinguishes humanity from other animal species. All human societies acquire, preserve and transmit a substantial amount of knowledge, mainly, through language. With the rise of civilizations, the accumulation and dissemination of knowledge are multiplied by the writing. Throughout history, mankind has developed a variety of techniques to preserve, transmit and develop knowledge, such as school, encyclopaedias, newspapers, and computers.
This importance goes hand in hand with a questioning of the value of knowledge. Many societies and religious movements, political philosophers have considered the accretion of knowledge, or its dissemination, is not appropriate and should be limited. Conversely, other groups and societies have created institutions to ensure their preservation, development and dissemination. Also, debate about the respective values of different domains and types of knowledge.
In contemporary societies, the diffusion of knowledge, or the contrary, retention of knowledge, has an important political and economic role, including military, so does the spread of pseudo-knowledge (or disinformation). Knowledge contributes as a power source. This role explains much of the dissemination of propaganda and pseudo-science, which attempts to present as knowledge, things that are not. This gives a particular importance to the sources of knowledge assumptions, such as mass media and their tools, such as the Internet.
And just as the invention of writing and printing brought about a revolution and the explosion of knowledge, now the invention of the Internet and the attempt to build a Semantic Web on it, would mean a revolution and the exponential explosion in the transmission of knowledge, on a scale without precedent for the entire history of civilization, not only because all knowledge would be accessible to a very small cost as the Internet has given rise, but also the cost of search time of the knowledge, through the filter of the Semantic Web on the Internet, would be reduced to almost zero.
To achieve the goal of building the Semantic Web, we need to “teach” the language to computers, and we need to know:
What is the nature of knowledge?
How to represent knowledge?
And these questions and their answers are not frivolous, because we must be aware that this is the crucial step that represents the Semantic Web: The incorporation of the “Language” in computers! And although my theorem “The limit of The Semantic Web” said that this is an impossible goal, everything that we discover researching in this way, would give us new tools for knowledge transfer. Obviously, if we were able to reach this goal we’d be very close to implant a “human thought” into machines but although having such skill they’d never be equivalent to human beings because of their different connections to the real world. If it would be very close to machines that have “human thought” that even though taking such a skill? they would never be the same or equivalent to human beings by their distinct relations with reality.
7 .- Nature and Representation of Knowledge.
The classical theory of transmitting knowledge (Communication Theory), which is communication theory, tells us that there is a transmitter (sender) and a receiver, which is what also uses psychology as a science, but the novelty of the discovery of psychoanalysis, is that in addition to the aforementioned receiver there is a second receiver that is also the same issuer (sender). And Psychoanalysis reveals the human being as a subject split, and thus reveals the ambivalence of language and the absence of an unequivocal sense of it, that is, without a sense of the meaning of language, as Wittgenstein said.
Psychoanalysis tells us that the constitution of the human being involved a symbolic world, which is the language ( The Symbolic Order ), an imaginary world ( The Imaginary Order ), which is the share that each has in the language, and the existence in The Real world, which is only accessible through the representation of it that gives us the combination of symbolic and the imaginary.
Regardless of all the complex details in psychoanalytic theory, you should take a look at this subject on Freud and Lacan, the important thing is that humans do not perceive the real world or reality as it is, but they perceive it under the prism of their own original constitution as human being. Thus the apprehension of knowledge is not unlimited, but it is limited to the ambivalent nature of human language, which sets the limits of knowledge of reality, and a good example of it is the unsuccessful attempt of the great mathematician Hilbert and others, to construct a mathematical system axiomatically complete and not contradictory in itself, but as Gödel proved with his theorems, if a system of knowledge is complete, then it is contradictory, and the opposite, if a system is incomplete then it is not contradictory, we also have other many examples as the Turing machine and “the halting problem” or stop of calculation. Eventually what all this tells us, is that language is dragging us to their own limits, and if we do not have this in mind to build the Semantic Web, we are doomed to failure from the outset.
Then the nature of knowledge is limited both, by the language as a transmitter of knowledge, and the Psychoanalytic structure of humans beings. And what represents knowledge among humans, it is not the thought, but it is the transmitter, or language. So the important thing is not so much the nature of knowledge, it is the nature of language and the means to transfer the language, and natural language is ambivalent and ambiguous, and this is what we have to take into account building Semantic Web.
One more point, the myths that we often disregard as being outdated and not modern, precisely the myths tell us what are the limits of our perception of reality, the limits of our thinking, and they all have in common besides the use of metaphor, which we mark the passage of reality as time goes on, the conclusion, and is because of that, human beings dont have the problem of stopping as in the Turing machine. Going further and more abundant, both Hegel and Kant considered time not categorized, and this is the same thing for Psychoanalysis, time is an illusion of our perception, and time is a way of representing reality as a course of events. And the Description Logic, which is the basis now used to build the Semantic Web, cannot give account of language, because you start building Description Logic (it has been built from Knowledge Representation who has been built from Formal Logic) missing the metaphor, since it is a symbolic logic, and the axiomatic system is complete, and lacking the metaphor, and of course as well as Gödel has shown us, ultimately leads to a contradiction, which is what happens all the time when trying to build the Semantic Web from this base: They have been a complete failure despite the multimillion-dollar investment! The basis for transferring knowledge, as I said earlier is natural language, and language has two fundamental structures:
Metonymy and metaphor.
With the metonymy we already have built the mathematical language, everything in it is a metonymic process, and if time take part of it, it is only a fiction, f(t) or time-dependent, but there is no use of metaphor, which could realize us of the senseless of the metonymy, metaphor would take us to reality and lead to solve the problem of finding the stop of the Turing machine.
Then we have to introduce the metaphor in the foundations of mathematics, which would allow us to build a logically consistent, but with no means contradictory, similar to the logic of human unconscious as understood by Psychoanalysis. If you achieve that goal, we would have the right tools to implement the Semantic Web on computers, and operate.
And this is my challenge: Find that logic consistent has metonymy in mathematical logic consistent, and has also incorporated the metaphor.
8.- Why not trying to teach how to talk and / or think to a Machine? Limitations and failures of the approach of the Description Logic.
When I was studying science, throughout my university’s years, a very experienced teacher of physics and mathematics, gave to me the following two advices:
The first advise, when one is faced with a problem to solve, the problem does not ask you how much know about it, to accommodate itself to your knowledge and be able to resolve it, this seems a truism and the truth of pure common sense, but in this case is truest than ever.
The second advise was that “usually” all problems have a solution that is “implicit” if the question of the problem is well posed, in other words if the reference frame of the problem is well built.
Both these comments made me totally change my point of view and I started to address the problem of building the “Semantic Web”, instead of putting my efforts directly in their resolution, with the deep and dense training on Mathematics and Physics that I acquired in my training as a scientist, and I realize that it has been the usual attitude of all those who have worked so far in this field trying to solve this problem, and so far with little success, I preferred to leave the particular and specific problem, and take a more comprehensive and broad in the same (which means leave the forest to see a whole and not a single tree), and therefore as I said, instead of attempt directly and rapidly his solution, I am taking a long detour, and not absurd or meaningless, according to the two “recommendations” above, and I am building a framework to provide a place to build “the Semantic Web”.
To do this I started looking for where to build the “Semantic Web” in computing, and now it is a part of the logic description, which in turn is based on Symbolic Logic and Mathematical Logic.
As I know the limitations of symbolic or formal logic, reflected in the theorems of Gödel and many paradoxes in mathematics and physics, I have expanded my field of knowledge from Fundamental Science to Humanities (Social Sciences), and if so then it is to teach to talk to a computer (or what is equivalent teach a computer to understand what we say), we are asking for the language, and therefore I joined the language in the framework of the problem.
It could have gone to philosophy, but the problem that I found is that their development uses formal logic as a unique system of thought (as in pure mathematics).
The need to answer the question what is intelligence? And what is thought? Both answer are necessary to try to teach a machine, and the answers of this questions could be found on Psychoanalysis combined with linguistics, not on psychology or biology or genetics, as they used only an approximation to reality which is quantitative, statistical, and formal logic, and although the method is very orthodox on science, formal logic has serious limitations, because if our hypotheses are complete then the system is in contradiction, and if our assumptions are incomplete then the system is consistent. The orthodox approach of science has serious limitations, in addition to the above, by requiring experimental verification, since not everything that exists or is part of reality is experimentally verifiable, in a quantitative and statistical way, and if we do not accept this limitation to access absolutely to reality, at least it should be taken as a working hypothesis, because what I am saying is that our approach of the orthodox scientific method is incomplete and does not allow us to solve the problem that we are dealing with.
And more, Quantum Mechanics on Physical Science, says us that if we make any experiment, we are changing the isolated conditions of it when we show it, and then we change the results of it by our interaction with it. All of this means that if we want to assure all the scientific knowledge on experimentation, we change the results of our own real experiments; then it is a illusion and a big mistake to built a perfect formal logical system on Science which only reference are the experiments, and a example of it is the paradox of Schrödinger’s Cat.
According to psychoanalysis, the human being is a reality that goes beyond the merely biological, because human beings are not regulated exclusively by its own instincts (as animals in the field of biology). According to Psychoanalysis humans beings are regulated by their relationship with the “Goce”: Jouissance-Enjoyment (drives: Libido/Eros & Thanatos) in the technical sense of that term in Psychoanalysis and they are not regulated by the Instincts; from the Freud’s age English people has translated the German Trieb as Instincts, and it is a great mistake! And it is one of the main reasons because for English scientists Brain is the same as Mind. The importance of this term “unknown” for the rest of science is that it is accurate and marks the exact difference between humans and all other living beings. This difference is that we are “speaking beings”, and this has enabled us to build our civilization, culture and technology. Therefore, as far as possible we could make a machine to reach thought or talk, it will never be equivalent to a human being, because their relation with reality is different: the human being feels (and thinks) for the “Goce” and the machine could think or speak but could not feel because it has no relation to the “lack” and “Goce”. And the sense of the term feel, I mean it technically in Psychoanalysis, the lack of not being complete, the pain being experienced by every human being or for each individual, and not generalizable in the experimental, sense, statistical and quantitative science, but if I cannot prove it scientifically, it does not mean that it does not exist, and this particular and specific link with the human existence, modify profoundly its relationship with reality, so that is not reproducible, and not outside of each experimental human being, and also we cannot build a machine with this faculties. This is because I say that even if we could talk to a machine, and by extension it has a dimension of our thinking, it would never be complete in the sense of the lack experience, the real experience of every human being. The only hard evidence in this regard can be drawn from the clinic and/or psychopathology of psychoanalysis, and try to get to understand some of it is necessary to be a scholar of psychoanalysis, but we can take it at least as a hypothesis and or a working premise: If all the assumptions are set up correctly, I should be able to find the solution to our problem.
10.- The Thought is not the same as Language: What is Intelligence? What is Thought?
Now I am trying to answer the question: What is intelligence? To define what is Intelligence, from Psychoanalysis, and as I understand it, Intelligence is the conjunction of the three orders of the psychic structure of Human beings:
First, The Symbolic Order (the language), Second, The Imaginary Order (it is the partial access to the language of each human being), Third, the existence of the person in the reality (The Real), all this terms contained in the strict technical sense of psychoanalysis. Because of this we could realize that language is not the same as thought, but thought and intelligence are the same or equivalents, and now I am trying to answer the question: What is thought? And again Though is the conjunction of the three orders of the psychic structure of Human beings: First, The Symbolic Order (the language), Second, The Imaginary Order (it is the partial access to the language of each human being), Third, the existence of the person in the reality (The Real).
Then I do not need to reach deeper into the thought and intelligence, I can not build a machine that would feel the “failure” and/or “pain” of the existence like human beings (it is what creates metaphor), so I could only take the language, and it will bring a dimension of thought, not exactly like that of humans, but at least more powerful than mere formal logic, and then the two mechanisms to built our machine are metonymy and metaphor, I understand that these are the two basic mechanisms of human language (and thought & intelligence).
11.- Difference between Animals and Humans, and Brain and Mind.
One more comment about the nature of thought and the rest of living beings or animals: animals have access only to the imagination (the Mirror Stage), which is not the language (the symbolic order), and animals can not access to language, I mean, that language is not only the ability to speak and/or transmitting knowledge, the symbolic language is the ability to grasp the reality (the real world), and because of this they are not related to the “Goce”, and their behaviours are governed only by the “Instincts“, which are biological and genetic mechanisms, and inherited behaviour for survival, and are feasible for experiments, with quantitative and statistics measures, while access to language (the symbolic order) of humans beings, makes on them a transformation from their purely biological nature of the brain, and it creates the “mind”, which is related to the “Goce” and “lack”. I say more times in accurate way for being well understood: if there is no access to the language there is no access to the “Goce” and “lack”, and neither thought and intelligence, but I wonder: could there be some kind of access to language without access to the “Goce”?, and the answer that we have from computers is that they have partly access to language, through symbolic logic, but have no access to pain or the “Goce” as humans beings. Thus incorporating the other mechanism of language, metaphor, to a machine is very complicated, because we would build a logical structure with metaphor, then if I can not add “Goce” and “lack” into a machine, I can not incorporate the metaphor, and therefore a machine can not talk, can not think, and can not have intelligence.
12.- Conclusion: Inability of Language and human Thought in the Machine , and the false statement of the Semantic Web & Artificial Intelligence.
After all this, my program is unsuccessful and it is not possible to teach the language to a machine, because it lacks any relationship with the “Goce” and then is not possible to introduce another mechanism of language and thought, the metaphor. The latter arises from the processes of elaboration of the unconscious and is the conclusion of them. We can not build machines with access to the “Goce”, so it is impossible to give them intelligence as do humans. And with regard to animals, but would have to say that all animals have access to the “lack” of existence, but they are unable to symbolize it, they lack the mechanisms of human thought, which are metaphor and metonymy, and they can not construct a language, which would allows them to build a symbolic system that could create culture, civilization and technology, which is the case in humans. The animals are only in the stage mirror, and they are only a biological body, because there is no separation of the biological body as in the case of human beings (because of the symbolic order humans beings could do that), then the animals do have “brains” but not have “mind”.
The claim that a central property of human beings, Intelligence —the Sapience of Homo sapiens— can be so precisely described that it can be simulated by a machine is a false statement!
The claim that a central property of human beings, Language can be so precisely described that it can be simulated by a machine with the Semantic Web is a false statement!
The final question for me comes across this preparation and it is:
Why do human beings (we are animals too) have been able to speak to build a symbolic world apprehends reality in a symbolic order and yet the rest of living beings (animals) have not been able to do this?
Or in another way:
Why, if both animals and humans are associated with a real biological difference (albeit with very small differences in genetic differences between all species living) the human being has agreed to the relationship with the “Goce” (which has allowed him to speak) while the animals are left in the stadium or imaginary mirror and have no connection with the “Goce”? And I’m almost absolutely sure that the answers to them do not come from biology, genetics, or any other neuroscience…
13.- Theorem: “The limit of The Artificial Intelligence”.
The limit of the Artificial Intelligence is not set by the use of machines themselves, and biological systems could be used to reach this goal, but as the Logic that is being used to construct it does not contemplate the concept of time, since it is purely formal logic and metonymic lacks the metaphor, and this is what Gödel’s theorems remark, the final tautology of each construction or metonymic mathematical language, which leads to inconsistencies. The construction of the Artificial Intelligence is an Undecidible Problem .
This consistent logic is completely opposite to the logic that makes inconsistent use of time, inherent of human unconscious, but the use of time is built on the lack, not on positive things, it is based on denials and absences, and this is impossible to reflect on a machine because of the perceived lack of the required self-awareness is acquired with the absence.
The problem of Artificial Intelligence is that we are trying to build an Intelligence system to replace our way of thinking, at least in the information search, but the special nature of human mind is the use of metaphor which lets human beings reach a conclusion, therefore does not exist in the human mind the Halting Problem or stop of calculation.
If you suppose as a theorem, that it is possible to construct a machine, with an Intelligence with capabilities similar to human Intelligence, we should face it as a theorem, we can prove it to be false with a Counter Example, and it is given in the particular case of the Turing machine and “the halting problem” or stop of calculation.
So all efforts faced toward Artificial Intelligence are doomed to failure a priori if the aim is to extend our human way of thinking into machines, they lack the metaphorical speech, because only a mathematical construction, which will always be tautological and metonymic, and lacks the use of metaphor that is what leads to the conclusion or “stop”.
14.- Theorem: From Logic to Ontology: The limit of “The Semantic Web”.
The limit of the Semantic Web is not set by the use of machines themselves, and biological systems could be used to reach this goal, but as the Logic that is being used to construct it does not contemplate the concept of time, since it is purely formal logic and metonymic lacks the metaphor, and this is what Gödel’s theorems remark, the final tautology of each construction or metonymic Mathematical Language , which leads to inconsistencies. The construction of the Semantic Web is an Undecidible Problem .
This consistent logic is completely opposite to the logic that makes inconsistent use of time, inherent in human unconscious, but the use of time is built on the lack, not on positive things, it is based on denials and absences, and this is impossible to reflect on a machine because of the perceived lack of the required self-awareness is acquired with the absence.
The problem is we are trying to build an intelligent system to replace our way of thinking, at least in the information search, but the special nature of human mind is the use of time which lets human beings reach a conclusion, therefore does not exist in the human mind the Halting Problem or stop of calculation.
So all efforts faced toward semantic web are doomed to failure a priori if the aim is to extend our human way of thinking into machines, they lack the metaphorical speech, because only a mathematical construction, which will always be tautological and metonymic, and lacks the use of the time that is what leads to the conclusion or “stop”.
As a demonstration of that, if you suppose it is possible to construct the semantic web, as a language with capabilities similar to human language, which has the use of time, should we face it as a theorem, we can prove it to be false with a Counter Example, and it is given in the particular case of the Turing machine and “the halting problem”.
15.- Bibliography and Index of Useful Concepts
If you take a look at the Ninety-two posts below down, or in Last Post Index & View of Meta Internet Blog (you can look for each of them in the search of the blog or in Wikipedia -and if you speak Spanish language you should change from English to Spanish language-), then you could realize that you understand all of the entire frame and the background that is needed to.
has emerged as the leading online knowledge base for conducting semantic Web and related research. The system is being tapped for both data and structure. Wikipedia has arguably replaced 
November 21, 2007 at 5:48 pm I wonder why people keep pointing to the Scientific American article, which is where we laid out the vision of the data web, as the opposing view.Not only don’t we argue for some sort of agreed upon consensus model of AI and some sort of syllogistic model, but the article actually builds an opposing view to that — the idea is that local ontologies, built by any group of users, can be used to organize and integrate parts of the data on the data Web.I wish people criticizing our article, especially Shirky, had actually read it..I am currently blogging my reply – look for it at http://www.mindswap.org/blog under the entry “Shirkying my responsibility”
-Jim Hendler
November 21, 2007 at 6:42 pm […] set me off today was discovering a blog called “Two Semantic Webs” in which the author has seen the light and says that she gets it – there are two visions of […]
November 22, 2007 at 10:48 am This has been said elsewhere , but just to be clear; the “Chaotic Semantic Web” is what the idea has always been.The “Orderly Semantic Web” is a straw man. Nobody thinks that everyone is just going to magically agree on a few ontologies or even a few data formats; it’s going to be a “fractal mess” (to quote Tim Berners-Lee) for a long time to come.
I don’t know where the idea that the SemWeb is about the straw man comes from, but it seems to have taken a better hold on people than the truth.
November 23, 2007 at 10:08 am Hi,
Actually, Tim Berners-Lee predicts exactly what you call the “Chaotic Semantic Web”. If you refer to his book “Weaving the Web”, in the chapter where he’s describing the Semantic Web vision (I think it was 13) you would realize that Berners-Lee is expecting pretty much the same thing: agreement on ontologies and meanings will emerge as people will use the said technologies (RDF, OWL) more and more. There is no need for an agreement on terms as a prerequisite for the semantic web – it’s basically a process.
It’s not 2 different things – it’s one semantic web that may evolve (hopefully) into something more orderly as more and more people and organizations begin to use the same terms (=ontologies) to describe things. In the meantime, people will just point from one ontology to another.
So for example, if I have an ontology that defines the properties of a ‘Person’ entity, I may have a ‘last name’ property.
Your ontology can have a similar notion of a Person, but with a property named ’surname’.
So now, when we want our two programs to cooperate, we would only need to point from ‘last name’ to ’surname’ saying that these 2 properties actually mean the same thing. There’s no need for an actual agreement on terms for our programs to cooperate.
November 24, 2007 at 2:48 am Thanks for your comments, Lior.Based on your reaction – and James Hendler’s, the force of which sort of surprised me – I fear that I didn’t give the proper context to this post. I didn’t mean to say that Tim Berners-Lee, James Hendler, & and Ora Lassila have this rigid view of what the Semantic Web should be. Their body of work clearly shows that they don’t – for anyone who has read it.
What I meant is that the Scientific American article starts out by painting a picture that oversimplifies the concept, and many people never get beyond that. I’ve noticed this over and over in my own conversations with people, and I’m trying to find a way to get beyond those preconceptions. In my experience, most of the people who dismiss the concept of the Semantic Web do so on the grounds that they think the intention is that it be The Intelligent Web.
By nature, I break things down and define them. If I have to split the Semantic Web into two parts, two phases, or two models in order to explain it better to people, then that’s what I’m going to do. Just because I’m trying to aknowledge and respond to these misguided notions, doesn’t mean I fall into the camps that believe them.
November 24, 2007 at 3:01 am James,I’ve left a more comprehensive response to your post over on your blog, but here let me just say that I did not mean to mischaracterize your article. I am responding more to the preconceived notions of people that I have actually spoken to about their understanding of the Semantic Web. Now, perhaps some of those people read the article and didn’t get much further than the tale of Pete and Lucy, or perhaps they didn’t read it at all.
I’m not saying that the ideas in the article are anything short of brilliant – I’m saying there’s still a need to bring these ideas into terms that the mainstream can relate to. Unfortunately, the part of the article that attempts to do this overreaches a little (in my opinion) and as a result, has caused some of the misguided notions that you, yourself, are so rightfully concerned about.
November 24, 2007 at 3:24 am Brandon,I totally agree with you that “Nobody thinks that everyone is just going to magically agree on a few ontologies or even a few data formats” and I think I pretty much said so in my article. But the fact is that there are people who think that that’s the intention and they, therefore, think the Semantic Web is impossible.
I set out to present those people with another view of the semantic web, in hopes that it would clarify some things and dispell some myths. Instead, I seem to have sparked some controversy among people who, as far as I can tell, already share my perspective.
November 24, 2007 at 12:26 pm Hi Rachel, ok, hopefully I’ve corrected my mistake (changed title of my post), thanks.Nova
November 24, 2007 at 1:29 pm Actually, I think your original title was correct. The part I question is the idea that Hendler is refutting criticisms of the semantic web. While that’s partially true (especially in the case of Shirky & O’Reilly, it seems), his post is mostly about adamantly denouncing things that I said that he actually agrees with.
November 25, 2007 at 8:08 pm […] my blog of a couple days ago, I said what set me off was a blog by Rachel. Let me be clear, I was in no way disagreeing with her view of the Semantic Web – if you read […]
February 3, 2008 at 2:30 pm […] set me off today was discovering a blog called “Two Semantic Webs” in which the author has seen the light and says that she gets it – there are two visions of the […]